2016 (9) TMI 1012 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay - show cause demand notice for duty short paid forwarded to supplier as litigation was carried on by the supplier - impression that appeal would be filed by the supplier - reminder received for recovery of confirmed dues - Held that - the principles of law as laid down in the case of Office of The Chief Post Master General Vs M/s Living Media India Ltd 2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA is followed. No action has been initiated by the applicant in ascertaining the fact whether the appeal had been prepared by the said M/s Ganpati Energy Pvt. Ltd. and filed till the reminder for recovery of dues was received from the Department. Needless to mention that the applicant was fully aware of the fact that the reply to the Show Cause Notice and the appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) against the adjudication order had been filed through them only and the same cannot be independently filed by M/s Ganpati Energy Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, it is difficult to accept that the aforesaid non-action by the applicant has been bonafide and devoid of negligence. Delay not condoned - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing the Appeal before the Tribunal.

In this case, the main issue revolves around the application seeking condonation of a delay of approximately 332 days in filing an Appeal before the Tribunal. The Appellant, represented by Advocate Shri K.I. Vyas, explained the delay by stating that they had a contract with a supplier for the purchase of imported steam coal, which led to a dispute regarding the classification of the coal. The Appellant believed that the supplier would file the Appeal on their behalf, but when they received a recovery notice for confirmed dues, they discovered that the Appeal had not been filed. The Appellant argued that there was no intentional delay on their part and requested the delay to be condoned. However, the Revenue's representative argued that the Appellant had not taken necessary steps to ensure the Appeal was filed, as required by law. The Revenue contended that the explanation provided for the delay was vague and unsubstantiated, citing a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for support.

The Tribunal noted that the Appellant had received the order from the Commissioner (Appeals) on a specific date but failed to take further action to confirm whether the Appeal had been prepared and filed by the supplier. The Tribunal highlighted that the Appellant was aware that they needed to verify and sign the Appeal papers themselves, and the failure to do so demonstrated negligence. Referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal concluded that the delay of 332 days could not be condoned as it lacked merit. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the Appeal as well.