2017 (4) TMI 258 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay - a delay of 56 days in filing the appeals and the appeal itself is delayed beyond the normal deadline from the date of receipt of the order - Held that - the applications for condonation of delay is conspicuously bereft of any cogent justification for the delay. An affidavit dated 6th April, 2016 was filed by an authorized officer to explain the delay all of which relate to non-traceability of the file and the delay in receiving inputs from the assessing group. From this affidavit it would appear that the Committee of Commissioners left it to the lower authorities to ascertain and prepare the grounds for appeal against the impugned order - the competent Committee of Commissioners did not appear to have had knowledge of the delay. The exercise of jurisdiction to review is to be taken up with full cognizance of the circumstances connected with the appeal. Lack thereof, including that of delay, vitiates the review proceedings as the competent committee has not been enabled to apply its mind to the issue - appeal dismissed - delay not condoned - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals for condonation of delay in filing appeals Nos. C/87031, 87170, and 81717/2015 by Commissioner of Customs (Import), JNCH, Mumbai-II against order-in-appeal 135-137/(Gr.VA/2015(JNCH)-Appeal-II, dated 8th April, 2015 of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), Mumbai.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed with a delay of 56 days beyond the normal deadline from the date of receipt of the order.
2. The applications for condonation of delay lacked a cogent justification for the delay, citing non-traceability of the file and delay in receiving inputs from the assessing group.
3. The Committee of Commissioners delegated the task of preparing grounds for appeal to lower authorities, which was not a proper discharge of duties expected from senior officers in the tax hierarchy.
4. The Tribunal referred to various legal precedents, emphasizing the responsibility of Revenue to seek redressal of grievance with adequate justification in case of a delay in filing an appeal.
5. The competent Committee of Commissioners did not seem to have knowledge of the delay, which affected the review proceedings as the committee was unable to apply its mind to the issue.
6. Due to the lack of proper justification and failure to meet the expected standards of diligence in filing the appeals, the applications seeking condonation of delay were dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the appeals themselves.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues surrounding the delay in filing appeals and the subsequent dismissal due to insufficient justification and failure to meet statutory obligations.