2014 (4) TMI 1024 - HC - Customs

Bar of Limitation - Condonation of delay of 823 days - Filing of appeal Sufficiency of reason - Negligent conduct of Assessee - Held that - Firstly, except for the reason that Accounts Executive left the job, there is no other reason furnished - Even according to assessee, he left the job during January 2013, whereas the order was passed by the Tribunal on 23.06.2011 - Therefore, this could have been hardly taken as an explanation for the inordinate delay - The affidavit is bereft of particulars, the date on which the order passed by Tribunal was served on assessee has not been furnished, which appears to be deliberate - Therefore, it is hold that the explanation offered is wholly unacceptable and assessee were grossly negligent and their plea lacks bonafide - Unless the assessee was able to establish that the assessee was prevented from approaching this Court within the time due to reasons beyond their control or for bonafide reason, there is no reason to exercise discretion in the matter - Therefore, taking note of the conduct of assessee, prayer made for condonation of delay is rejected Decided against assesse.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal seeking condonation of 823 days, Typographical error in Bill of Entry leading to excess payment, Rejection of appeal by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and Tribunal, Failure to establish sufficient cause for delay in filing appeal.

Analysis:
1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed by the assessee against the Final Order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Chennai, with a delay of 823 days. The assessee filed a petition seeking to condone the delay, attributing it to the unwellness and subsequent departure of the Accounts Executive-Imports responsible for filing the appeal without giving suitable instructions to the successor. The delay was not adequately justified, as the order was passed in June 2011, and the explanation provided for the delay until January 2013 was deemed unacceptable due to lack of diligence on the part of the assessee.

2. The appeal before the CESTAT arose from an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) regarding a typographical error in the Bill of Entry leading to excess payment. The assessee claimed a mistake in the RSP details of an item, resulting in overpayment, and sought cancellation of OOC, reassessment, and refund based on Supreme Court decisions. However, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) found no evidence to support the claim, emphasizing the need for vigilance in presenting accurate details in the bill of entry and during duty payment.

3. The Tribunal (CESTAT) rejected the appeal on the grounds of insufficient evidence, specifically the absence of reference points like labels on packages showing the correct RSP details. The Tribunal maintained the decision of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) due to the lack of verifiable information supporting the assessee's plea for modification of RSP details.

4. The High Court declined to delve into the merits of the case due to the significant delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing the importance of establishing sufficient cause for the delay. The Court highlighted the failure of the assessee to provide a valid reason for the delay apart from the departure of the Accounts Executive, which was deemed insufficient to justify the prolonged delay. The Court concluded that the explanation offered was unacceptable, reflecting gross negligence on the part of the assessee, and subsequently rejected the plea for condonation of delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal due to the failure of the assessee to establish sufficient cause for the significant delay in filing the appeal, highlighting the importance of diligence and timely action in legal proceedings.