2008 (8) TMI 335 - HC - Customs

Delay in Appeal before High Court delay of 1280 days Held that - the non-availability of the certified copy of the order of CESTAT is not a sufficient cause to condone the delay of 1280 days. Further, it is not a case where the appeal has been filed with such delay along with the certified copy of the order - It pains us to state that it is unfortunate that the Government, its instrumentalities and Departments, which is the biggest litigant is not vigilant enough in prosecuting its cases in time particularly when the public exchequer is involved. The Government ought to be a model in these matters as it has all the wherewithal to contest cases in a timely manner as compared to an ordinary litigant.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal due to non-availability of certified copy of CESTAT order.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed challenging an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in 2004. However, the appeal was filed in 2008, causing a delay of 1280 days. The appellant sought condonation of delay due to the unavailability of a certified copy of the CESTAT order. The court noted that the practice mandates filing appeals with certified copies of judgments/orders. The appellant applied for dispensation of the certified copy requirement, but the court found no sufficient reason to condone the lengthy delay.

The court observed that the appellant did not take timely action after withdrawing the appeal from the Delhi High Court in 2006. Despite receiving an attested copy of the CESTAT order in 2007, the appellant delayed filing the appeal until 2008. The court criticized the lack of follow-up by the appellant in obtaining the certified copy, emphasizing the importance of timely legal actions, especially for a government entity.

The court highlighted that the delay cannot be justified merely by the non-availability of the certified copy. It was noted that the appellant could have proceeded with the appeal using a true copy of the order, available with the Department, and sought an extension to produce the certified copy later. The court dismissed the appeal due to the significant delay and lack of diligence in handling the legal matter.

The court also mentioned a previous order of CESTAT challenged before the Supreme Court, which was set aside. The appellant argued that the impugned order should be quashed based on this precedent. However, the court found no valid reason to condone the delay, emphasizing the importance of timely legal actions, especially for a government entity involved in litigation.

In conclusion, the court expressed disappointment in the government's lack of vigilance in prosecuting cases promptly, especially when public funds are at stake. The court dismissed the appeal solely on the grounds of delay, highlighting the need for timely legal actions, particularly for government entities involved in litigation.