THANJAI STUDY CENTRE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals by the assessee are directed against common order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 24 -4 -2013, in Nos. 40125, 40126, 40127, 40128/2013. By the said order, the Tribunal rejected applications filed by the appellant/assessee seeking for condonation of delay in filing the respective appeals before the Tribunal. The appellant is a Study Centre providing coaching training services to the students of various Universities. As stated that they are collecting fees from students and providing coaching services to them. Contending that the service rendered by the appellant, being one falling under the category "commercial training and coaching services" as defined under Section 65(26) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, they filed returns in the statutory form and also claimed exemption under Notification No. 6/2005 -S.T. dated 1 -3 -2005, as amended. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise issued show cause notices on 3 -2 -2009, 24 -7 -2009, 4 -1 -2010 and 11 -3 -2011, to the appellant alleging that the services rendered by them, are in the name of the respective Universities and also using the logo of the Universities and therefore, demanded service tax from the appellant. The appellant submitted his reply and the Original Authority by separate orders dated 30 -9 -2009, 26 -1 -2010, 17 -8 -2010 and 24 -10 -2011, rejected the contentions raised by the appellant, and confirmed the demands, as against which, the appellant preferred separate appeals before the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy. Appeal No. 164/2010, which was for the half year ending September, 2008, was dismissed on merits upholding the order of the Original Authority. Appeal No. 210/2010 for the half year ending March, 2009, was also dismissed on merits by the First Appellate Authority. Appeal No. 131/2010 for the half year ending September, 2009, was rejected as being time barred and Appeal No. 219/2012 for the half year ending March, 2010, and September, 2010, was rejected on merits. As against these four orders, the appellant preferred four appeals to the Tribunal. However, the appeals were not filed within the period of limitation and were barred by time. The period of delay ranged from 53 days to 246 days.

(2.) IN the affidavits filed in support of the applications seeking for condonation of delay, the Proprietor of the appellant -firm submitted that he had engaged one Mr. J. Purushothaman, Chartered Accountant, to prepare the appeal petitions and since his Chartered Accountant had to undergo a major surgery and took rest after the surgery, for about three months, he could not present the appeal papers within time. The medical certificate issued by the Madras Medical Mission, was also produced before the Tribunal. The Revenue resisted the applications stating that the Chartered Accountant was admitted to the hospital on 20 -4 -2011, and discharged on 29 -4 -2011, and thereafter, he was advised three months rest and the appellant has not taken initiative for filing the appeals. The Tribunal agreed with the contentions raised by the Revenue, and held that the delay has occurred in between 22 -12 -2010 and 5 -2 -2013 and there was no valid reason for such a long delay. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court by way of these appeals and seeks admission on the following common substantial questions of law:

(3.) WE have heard Mr. S. Ramachandran, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, and also Mr. M. Santhana Raman, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondent.