2016 (4) TMI 1072 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay of 422 days - Delay is because the Registry notified five objections - Objections were complied with on 14th February, 2013 - Held that - parties and advocates, including Revenue and their officials, take this entire exercise very lightly and casually. In terms of the Bombay High Court Original Side Rules, matters are taken up by high level Registry officials so that they are ready in all respects before they are listed before the Court for admission / hearing. This is to afford an opportunity to the parties and their advocates to comply with all procedural requirements set out in the Rules. There is a separate Board which is prepared and duly displayed. In the age of Information Technology, parties cannot now say that they are unaware of the matters being listed. The Prothonotary & Senior Master s board and the Court s board, for at least a week if not sooner, is available to the parties. Therefore, the routine explanation of the Revenue officials that it was the duty of their advocate and they were not required to follow up the matter/case with the advocate or with the Registry would mean sheer negligence and inaction. The Hon ble Supreme Court has clarified in several judgments that the Revenue or Government is not a special litigant and deserves no such treatment. It is as much bound by the law and rules of limitation as every other litigant. The Governmental inefficiencies, deliberate inaction, negligence and bureaucratic ignorance which could be deliberate as well are not reasons which can be said to be sufficient cause for condoning delay and for all times and in all matters to come. If the Revenue officials feel that it is the duty of the advocate alone and they must not follow up the cases filed in the High Court, then, they ought to be realising that the assistance and sympathy uptill now shown by this Court is grossly abused. Now it is seen as a right to ignore matters which are filed and to not attend the Court or not to depute anybody to attend the Court offices so as to render the Court Registry the requisite assistance. The Revenue and the Government is the biggest litigant in Courts. It ill comes from the Government that this Court does not dispose of matters in a timely manner and delay defeats justice. First of all why there is a delay and which could be the result of its complete negligence or deliberate inaction is something which the Government must ponder and correct for itself. This Court is not going to accept the routine explanation and which in this case hardly inspires confidence. The public at large is fully aware of all this and if crores of rupees are at stake, the Registry of this Court is not expected to entertain the Revenue and Government officials in a distinct manner. Equally, the Revenue officials and their advocate should be vigilant and not allow matters to go in default like in the present case. They are themselves to be blamed for this mess and they cannot request the Court to accept any cause as sufficient and reasonable when that is bereft of accurate particulars, and details. The statements in the affidavit-in-support are not correct. Therefore, the reasons cannot be said to be sufficient cause. - Decided against the revenue

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in applying for restoration of appeal.

Analysis:
The Revenue filed an application seeking condonation of a 422-day delay in applying for restoration of an appeal before the High Court. The Central Excise Appeal was initially filed on January 8, 2013, but faced office objections that were not promptly resolved. Despite some objections being removed, the Registry highlighted that certain exhibits were not marked as true copies, hindering the appeal's admission before a Division Bench. The Prothonotary & Senior Master eventually dismissed the appeal on June 30, 2013, due to the unresolved office objections.

The Notice of Motion to set aside the dismissal order was filed on July 3, 2014, citing delays caused by notification of objections and subsequent non-compliance. The Revenue claimed that one objection was not noticed promptly, leading to its late removal. The Court emphasized the importance of parties and advocates taking procedural requirements seriously, especially in matters listed before high-level Registry officials for admission or hearing. The Court criticized the Revenue's casual approach and highlighted that governmental inefficiencies and negligence cannot be sufficient reasons for condoning delays.

The Court expressed disapproval of the Revenue's attempt to rectify procedural non-compliance post-appeal dismissal by filing a Restoration Application in 2014 for an appeal already dismissed in 2013. The Court emphasized that the Registry should not entertain requests from advocates to tamper with files in such cases. The judges noted that the Revenue officials and their advocate should have been more vigilant to prevent defaults, attributing blame to them for the situation. Ultimately, the Court found no merit in the Notice of Motion for condonation of delay and dismissed it, highlighting the insufficiency of the reasons provided in the affidavit-in-support.