9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 36 - HC - Central ExciseCondonation of delay of 1994 days in filing the present notice of motion - no explanation for delay provided - HELD THAT - We note complete absence of any explanation for the delay in taking out the motion and prosecuting it from 2012 to 2017. This is in itself evidence of negligence on the part of the Revenue. No cause has been made out to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Condonation of delay application is rejected - notice of motion is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
Delay in filing notice of motion seeking to set aside an order passed by the Prothonotary & Senior Master under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules. Analysis: The judgment deals with an application to condone a significant delay of 1994 days in filing a notice of motion seeking to set aside an order dated 13 December 2012 passed by the Prothonotary & Senior Master. The affidavit filed in support of the motion initially failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay from 2012 to 2017. It mentioned the transfer of case files to the Daman Commissionerate after the implementation of the Goods and Service Tax Act in 2017, without clarifying why the objections were not addressed or why no application was filed during the period in question. The Revenue filed a further affidavit in June 2019 with better particulars, followed by an additional affidavit in July 2019 by an Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise. However, the subsequent affidavits also failed to adequately explain the delay from the date of the original order in 2012 to when the appeal was transferred to the present Commissionerate in 2017. The court noted the complete absence of any satisfactory explanation for the delay, attributing it to negligence on the part of the Revenue. Consequently, the court rejected the condonation of delay application, emphasizing that no cause had been established to justify condoning the delay in filing the appeal. As a result, the court dismissed the notice of motion, thereby upholding the impugned order dated 13 December 2012 of the Prothonotary & Senior Master.
|
