Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
India Vision Satellite Communications ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 16 June, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Application(s) Involved: ST/COD/20078/2015, ST/COD/20079/2015 in ST/20102/2015-DB, ST/20103/2015-DB Appeal(s) Involved: ST/20102/2015-DB, ST/20103/2015-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 02/2013 dated 23/01/2013 passed by Commissioner Of Customs & Central Excise , COCHIN ] [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 22/2013 dated 07/03/2013 passed by Commissioner Of Customs & Central Excise , COCHIN ] For approval and signature: HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER 1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? Yes 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes India Vision Satellite Communications Ltd. 32/17897, 6th Floor, Tuttus Tower, N.H. Bye Pass Road KOCHI - 682024 KERALA Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax C R BUILDING, I S PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN, - 682018 KERALA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. Sandip Gopalakrishna, Advocate MENON & MENON ADVOCATES KUMARAN ARCADE,1ST FLOOR, POWER HOUSE ROAD KOCHI - 682018 KERALA For the Appellant Mr. S. Teli, Dy. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 16/06/2015 Date of Decision: 16/06/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER Final Order No. 21364-21365 / 2015 Per : ARCHANA WADHWA Both the COD applications are being disposed of by a common order inasmuch as the appellant is common. In one case, the impugned order was passed on 21.1.2013 and was admittedly received by the appellant on 7.2.2013. In the other appeal, the order was passed on 7.3.2013 and was received by the appellants on 14.3.2013. The appeals in both the cases stand filed on 19.1.2015 i.e. almost with a delay of around 2 years.
2. As per the learned advocate appearing for the appellant, the said orders were received by their employee Shri Rajagopal, who was looking after the legal matters and was responsible for filing the appeals. The said employee left the services on 13.7.2013. Learned advocate submits that though the said employee handed over all the other accounts and account books, etc., to the concerned persons at the time of leaving, the said two orders were not handed over to any person for further action. In such a scenario, the appellant lost site of the said orders and it is only when in January, when Revenue approached them for recoveries, they located the said orders, prepared the appeals and filed the same in the Tribunal.
In the above scenario, the appellant prays for condoning the delay by relying upon various decisions laying down that the expression sufficient cause, employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner. He submits that the appellant has a good case on merits and the delay be condoned.
3. Countering the arguments, learned DR submits that the impugned orders were admittedly received by the appellant in the month of February and March 2013. As such, the normal period of limitation of three months, for filing the appeals, expired around May and June 2013 whereas their employee left the job on 13.7.2013 i.e., after the expiry of the limitation period. As such he submits that the effect of the employee leaving the job has no relevance for delay caused for filing the appeals. Learned DR also refers to various decisions wherein in an identical situation, delays were not condoned. One such reference is made to the Honble Supreme Court decision in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General vs. Living Media India Ltd.: 2012 (277) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.) wherein after discussing the entire law on the point of condonation of delay, the Honble Supreme Court observed that in the absence of any plausible and acceptable explanation, huge delays cannot be condoned.
4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. Whereas it is a fact that various decisions of the higher courts have observed that strict views cannot be adopted for condonation of delay issues resulting in injustice to the assessees, but it is also a fact that such delays cannot be condoned on the basis of casual approach of the assessee. Even though it is well settled law that each days delay has to be explained properly, but even if a wider approach is adopted, we note that in the present case there is no plausible explanation coming forth from the assessee for such a huge delay of 617 days. The reason forwarded by them i.e., leaving of the concerned employee is absolutely irrelevant inasmuch as the period for filing the appeal expired before the said employee leaving the said services. Otherwise also, it cannot be appreciated that the said employee handed over all other accounts books to the concerned person before his leaving except the present two impugned orders.
4.1 In view of the above, we find no justifiable reasons for condoning such huge delay of 617 days in filing the present appeals.
Accordingly the COD applications are rejected.
5. Inasmuch as the delay has not been condoned the appeals are liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation. We order accordingly.
(Order pronounced in open court) B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER rv 4