G. MASILAMANI Vs. CESTAT, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Shri S. Murugappan, learned counsel for the Appellant and Shri A.P. Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of the Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai, second respondent herein, was also heard.

(2.) Since the issue that is required to be considered by us is a pure question of law, we have taken up the matter for final disposal instead of admitting the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and then keeping them pending on the file of this Court for a while.

(3.) The Assessee is the Appellant who is aggrieved by the Final Orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in Final Order Nos. 41421 and 41422 of 2015, dated 15-10-2015. The Appellant has preferred the said appeals against the Orders in Original dated 30-8-2012 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai. Since there was a delay of 291 days in preferring the said appeals to the Tribunal, the Appellant moved Applications seeking condonation of delay. The reason assigned by the Appellant for seeking condonation of delay as set out in the affidavit in support of the Applications for condonation of delay, is that though the Orders in Original were received on 23-11-2012, consequently the appeals should have been preferred on or before 22-2-2013, by which day 90 days period provided for filing appeal expires, the Appellant has not noticed that the Orders in Original have already been received by one of the employees of the firm. In the meantime, the Appellant has himself taken ill and he has also produced necessary certificate from the Physician who treated him. In spite of that, the Tribunal viewed that the delay would cause extreme hardship to the Revenue to recover the dues and that condonation of delay would amount to lenient approach towards dilatory tactics normally adopted by the Assessee concerned. For the aforesaid reasons, the Applications seeking condonation of delay were dismissed and consequently the appeals also stood rejected. Hence, these two appeals were preferred to this Court now.