Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Smaaash Leisure Limited vs Delhi South on 27 September, 2019
Author: Dilip Gupta
Bench: Dilip Gupta
1
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI-110066
PRINCIPAL BENCH -COURT NO. 1
Service Tax Condonation of Delay Application No. 50558/2019
(on behalf of the Appellant)
In
Service Tax Appeal No. 51632 of 2019 - DB
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. D-III/ST/IV/16/Hqrs/Adjn./PVR
Bluo/156/20176248 dated 31 January, 2019 passed by the Commissioner,
Central Goods and Service Tax (Audit-II), New Delhi)
M/s Smaaash Leisure Limited Appellant
2nd Floor, Oasis Complex, PB Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai, Mumbai City
Maharashtra, India, 400013.
Versus
Commissioner of Central Goods Respondent
& Service Tax, New Delhi Audit-II, 1st Floor, EIL Annexe Building, Bikaji Cama Place, R.K. Puram, New Delhi - 110066.
Appearance :
Present for the Appellant: None Present for the Respondent: Shri A. Thaplial, DR CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing/Decision: 27.09.2019 Final Order No. 51281/2019 Justice Dilip Gupta:
The Appeal was filed in the office on 17 July, 2019 to assail the order dated 31 January, 2019 passed by the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, New Delhi. The Appeal was filed with certain defects and so a communication dated 19 July, 2019 was sent to the Appellant to remove the defects including the 2 defect of not filing an application for condoning the delay. It transpires that subsequently the defects were removed and delay condonation application was filed.
2. A communication dated 29 July 2019 was sent to the Appellant by registered post with the acknowledgement due to inform that the delay condonation application would be listed for hearing on 21 August, 2019. The Track Consignment Report of the Post Office indicates that the envelope was served upon the Appellant on 1 August, 2019 at 3.53 PM. When the matter was taken up on 21 August, 2019, neither the Appellant nor its Counsel appeared. The matter was, however, in the interest of justice, adjourned to 27 September, 2019.
3. Even today no one has appeared to press the delay condonation Application.
4. The delay condonation Application has been perused. It is stated that the applicant had informed the Department for a change in the e-mail address and a certificate of incorporation pursuant to the change of name had also been filed in December, 2018. The impugned order was, however, sent at the old address of the applicant and it is only when the applicant received a copy of the order from the old address that the Appeal was filed.
5. A perusal of the application does not indicate that any letter in writing was submitted by the Appellant to the Department regarding change of address. Only the change in the e-mail address had been intimated to the Department and this change of 3 e-mail address would not necessarily lead to a conclusion that the postal address had also changed in the meantime.
6. Mere submission of the certificate of registration cannot also be made a ground that the Department should have changed the address of the Appellant. In the absence of any specific communication from the Appellant regarding change of address, the Department was justified in sending the order at the recorded address. This apart, it is also not the case of the Appellant that when the order was sent to the earlier Vasant Vihar address, it was not received by the Appellant. All that is stated is that the Vasant Vihar office ought to have forwarded the order to the Appellant immediately but it failed to do so. The Appellant has also not indicated the date on which the Vasant Vihar office forwarded the order to the Appellant nor the Appellant has indicated when this order was received by it at the new address. These facts were required to be stated by the Appellant to make out a case for condoning the delay, but they have not been stated.
7. We are, therefore, not satisfied with the averments made in the application that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the stipulated time. The delay Application is, accordingly, rejected.
8. As the delay condonation Application has been rejected, the Appeal stands dismissed.
(Dictated & pronounced in open Court)
(Bijay Kumar) (Justice Dilip Gupta)
Member (Technical) President
4