1. This application filed by the appellant, a Public Sector Undertaking, seeks condonation of the delay of their appeal, which is seen estimated as "181 days and 1 or 2 more days transit time".

2. Today there is no representation for the appellant despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. On the previous occasion (15/10/2012), the counsel for the appellant had proposed to file a copy of the application which was claimed to have been filed with the Commissioner under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994. This Bench granted them liberty to file the document. But no such document appears to have been filed by the appellant. In this scenario, I am inclined to dispose of the present application.

3. A copy of the impugned order (Order-In-Original No.47/2010 ST dt. 31/12/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Thiruvananthapuram) was received by the appellant on 14/01/2011. An appeal against that order should have been filed within three months from the said date vide Section 86(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. The captioned appeal was filed on 01/12/2011 with a delay of around 225 days. Thus, at the outset, I find that the extent of delay estimated by the appellant is factually erroneous. The appellant has got to explain the actual delay of around 225 days. The present application seeks to explain the delay of "181 days and 1 or 2 more days transit time". In this connection, it has been submitted that an application was filed with the Commissioner under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994 on 25/08/2011 seeking rectification of certain mistake in the impugned order. Later on, the appellant received a letter dt. 23/09/2011 from the Superintendent (Adjudication), O/o the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellant, however, has not produced a copy of the Superintendent's letter. The learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) has been fair enough to furnish a copy of the said letter today and the same reads thus:-

On a perusal of your request for rectification, Commissioner has observed that "they can appeal against the Order-in-Original."

4. Without commenting on the above proceedings of the Commissioner, I proceed to take note of the fact that, after receiving the Superintendent's communication, the appellant decided to file the captioned appeal. Accordingly they prepared the appeal on 04/10/2011 and ultimately filed it with the Registry on 01/12/2011.

5. Having considered the above facts presented before me by both sides, I am not inclined to allow the present application, for the following reasons:

(a) The actual delay of appeal is around 225 days but the appellant has not even attempted to explain the delay in excess of "181 days and 1 or 2 more days transit time".

(b) As per Section 86(3) of the Act, the appellant ought to have filed the appeal without delay before 14/04/2011. The only reason stated by the appellant for the delay estimated by them is that they were awaiting the results of their application filed with the Commissioner under Section 74 of the Act. But the fact remains that even this application under Section 74 of the Act was filed with the Commissioner only on 25/08/2011, long after the statutory period of limitation under Section 86(3) of the Act ran out. The lack of bona fides in the appellant's application is thus self-evident.

(c) The appellant cannot plead ignorance of law. Their right to file appeal against the Commissioner's order was in no way affected by any proceedings initiated under Section 74 of the Act. The appellant's claim that they were awaiting the results of the Section 74 application does not stand to reason inasmuch as the Commissioner's order dt. 31/12/2010 itself was accompanied by a preamble which advised the appellant to appeal to this Tribunal within 3 months, if aggrieved. The provisions of Section 86(3) of the Act coupled with the advisory preamble to the impugned order were enough to make it incumbent on the appellant to file the appeal within th