2018 (10) TMI 1551 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay of 639 days in filing appeal - Held that - The Affidavit states that there is a delay in taking out the Motion seeking to set aside the order dated 25th August 2016 passed by the Prothonotary & Senior Master. The Affidavit in Support does not state that it was not informed and/or not aware of the dismissal of its Appeal in August 2017. Nor does the Affidavit indicate the date when the Respondent for the first time came to know about the date of the rejection of Appeal by the Prothonotary & Senior Master. This date is crucial for considering whether the delay in making out this Application is required to be condoned or not. The change of panel advocates does not absolve that the officers of the Revenue to keep themselves abreact of the proceedings in this Court and/or taking appropriate steps to appoint new advocate for the first panel. Not taking steps in the above regard is itself evidence of negligence on the part of the Revenue. We are not satisfied with the reasons set out in support of the Applicant to condone the delay as it evidences negligence on the part of the Revenue - delay cannot be condoned - application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in setting aside an order rejecting an appeal due to non-removal of office objections.

Analysis:

1. The motion sought condonation of a 639-day delay in setting aside an order dated August 25, 2016, rejecting an appeal for non-removal of office objections. The counsel for the applicant stated that the delay was due to changes in panel counsel for the Excise Department and the reorganization of the department following the implementation of the Goods and Service Tax Act in 2017.

2. The court noted that the affidavit in support did not mention when the respondent first became aware of the rejection of the appeal. The court emphasized that the change in panel advocates did not excuse the Revenue officers from staying informed about the proceedings and appointing a new advocate promptly. The court highlighted the negligence on the part of the Revenue for not taking appropriate steps to address the situation.

3. Referring to a previous case involving the Commissioner of Income Tax, the court emphasized the responsibility of Revenue officials to actively manage legal cases and appeals, rather than delegating the task to junior staff. The court criticized the negligent and careless attitude of Revenue officials in handling appeals involving significant tax amounts, stating that the officials expected leniency from the court without taking necessary actions to rectify their lapses.

4. The court concluded that the reasons provided by the applicant to condone the delay were not satisfactory, as they indicated negligence on the part of the Revenue. Consequently, the motion seeking condonation of delay was dismissed.

In summary, the court dismissed the motion seeking condonation of a delay in setting aside an order rejecting an appeal due to non-removal of office objections, citing the negligence of Revenue officials in staying informed about the proceedings and taking necessary actions promptly.