2015 (4) TMI 109 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Civil Applications for review against the order 2013 (5) TMI 705 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - Cenvat Credit - reasonable steps before availing credit - original manufacturer of fabrics were alleged to be fictitious - endorsed invoices - Held that - Union of India has failed to give any satisfactory answer as to what prevented them from filing the application for review within 30 days when there was no dispute that Special Leave Application could not be filed at the instance of the Revenue in this type of cases against our order dated 28th September 2012 where the revenue-effect involved was less than ₹ 25 lakh - applicants have failed to prove sufficient cause for not filing the applications for review within the period of limitation. There was also no justification at the instance of any reasonable person, none other than Union of India to wait till the permission for withdrawal of application for Special Leave was permitted by the Supreme Court with liberty to file application for review in a different matter inasmuch as on expiry of the period of limitation, a valuable right has accrued in favour of the respondent before us on the subject-matter of the present litigation. - Following decision of Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. and Another reported in 2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Condonation denied.

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Miscellaneous Civil Applications for Review
2. Applicability of Monetary Threshold for Filing Special Leave Petitions (SLP)
3. Justification for Delay in Filing Review Applications
4. Legal Precedents on Condonation of Delay

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Miscellaneous Civil Applications for Review:
The primary issue revolves around the applicant, Union of India, seeking condonation of a 417-day delay in filing Miscellaneous Civil Applications for review. The court noted that the grounds for delay in all applications were virtually the same, and thus, they were heard together. The applicant argued that the delay was due to the pending decision of the Central Board of Excise and Customs on whether to permit filing SLPs in cases with revenue below Rs. 25 lakh.

2. Applicability of Monetary Threshold for Filing Special Leave Petitions (SLP):
The court acknowledged that the Central Board of Excise and Customs had set a monetary threshold of Rs. 25 lakh for filing SLPs in the Supreme Court. The applicant initially proposed to file SLPs against a common order in nine tax appeals where the revenue involved exceeded Rs. 25 lakh. However, for appeals with revenue below Rs. 25 lakh, the applicant sought permission to file SLPs, which was pending approval.

3. Justification for Delay in Filing Review Applications:
The applicant contended that they pursued the request for filing SLPs through various representations and inquiries. The delay was attributed to the time taken for the Central Board of Excise and Customs to decide on the matter, the withdrawal of an SLP in a similar case (Vitrag Silk Mills (P.) Ltd.), and subsequent procedural formalities. The respondent opposed the applications, arguing that the applicant was aware of the monetary threshold and should have decided on filing review applications within the prescribed 30-day period.

4. Legal Precedents on Condonation of Delay:
The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Ajit Singh Thakur Singh v. State of Gujarat, which emphasized that sufficient cause for condonation of delay must be referable to events before the expiry of the limitation period. Events occurring after the expiry cannot constitute sufficient cause. The court also cited Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd., where the Supreme Court highlighted that government departments must provide reasonable and acceptable explanations for delays and cannot rely on procedural red-tape.

Conclusion:
After considering the submissions and legal precedents, the court found that the Union of India failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The court noted that the applicant should have taken immediate action within the 30-day limitation period, especially when the law prohibited filing SLPs for cases with revenue below Rs. 25 lakh. The applications for condonation of delay were deemed devoid of merit and were consequently dismissed. As a result, all connected applications for review were also dismissed as barred by limitation.

← Previous Next →