The Principal Commissioner Central Tax Central Excise Service Tax Delhi South vs. Ms Western Union Financial Services Inc C/O Kpmg Registered Mumbai

Facts

The appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise, Service Tax, Delhi South, sought to appeal two orders passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The first order, dated 25.01.2018, held that services rendered by the Department of Posts for money transfer to recipients in India constituted an export of services, making them not chargeable to Service Tax, and consequently set aside orders denying a refund claimed by the respondent. The second order, dated 08.06.2022, was issued because the appellant had not complied with the earlier order. The appellant filed an application seeking condonation of a 1471-day delay in filing the appeal against the 25.01.2018 order. The appellant attributed the delay to reshuffling of the Indirect Taxes Department post-GST implementation and difficulty in ascertaining territorial jurisdiction, as the respondent did not have an office in India.

Held

The Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay. It found the appellant's explanation for the inordinate delay of over four years to be unsatisfactory. The Court noted that the GST regime was implemented in July 2017, and the impugned order was passed thereafter, with the department being duly represented before the CESTAT. The Court found no valid reason for confusion regarding jurisdiction, especially since the proceedings originated from an order in original passed in 2010. The Court concluded that the appellant was not handicapped in ascertaining the relevant Commissionerate's jurisdiction and that the contention of persistent confusion for such a long period could not be countenanced. Consequently, the appeal was also dismissed as being filed beyond the period specified under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1471 days in filing the appeal against the CESTAT order dated 25.01.2018 should be condoned, considering the explanation provided by the appellant? (Question of fact and law) The appellant argued that the delay was caused by significant administrative changes following the implementation of the GST regime, leading to confusion regarding the correct Commissionerate and High Court for filing the appeal. They also cited difficulties in determining jurisdiction due to the respondent's lack of an Indian office. The respondent did not present arguments on this issue as the court focused on the condonation application.