9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 333 - HC - CustomsCondonation of delay of 452 days in filing the Appeal - penalty u/s 114-A of the Customs Act 1962 - Tribunal has used its judicial discretion not to condone the delay - contention is that the discretion used is perverse - HELD THAT - There are no particulars and an only general statement is made that there were transfers of officers due to annual general transfers and there was heavy workload. It is not asserted that the officers in charge of filing the appeal had a heavy workload and of urgent nature. It is also not stated that the officer in charge of filing the appeal was transferred. Nothing is stated as to who was the officer responsible for filing the Appeal. In the absence of any particulars if the Tribunal followed the decision in Chief Postmaster General 2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT we cannot hold that the view taken by the Tribunal is perverse. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the Order in Original dated 27 February 2017. 2. Liability of the assessee to pay penalty under Section 114-A of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Whether the issue raised is no longer integra and is squarely covered by previous decisions. 4. Perversity in the decision of not condoning the delay by the Tribunal. Analysis: 1. The Appellant challenged the Tribunal's order dismissing the application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the Order in Original dated 27 February 2017. The delay of 452 days was not condoned by the Tribunal, citing general reasons provided by the Appellant. The Tribunal found the reasons insufficient, referencing the decision in The Chief Post Master General v/s. Living Media India Ltd. The Tribunal concluded that the delay could not be condoned, and the legal issue raised was no longer res-integra. 2. The assessment order denying certain benefits to the Respondent was reviewed by the Committee of Chief Commissioners, leading to a review order passed on 9 June 2017. The Appellant filed the Appeal with a delay of 452 days. The Tribunal observed that even on merits, the case was not in favor of the Appellant. The Tribunal's decision not to condone the delay was based on the lack of specific particulars in the reasons provided by the Appellant, following the dicta of the Supreme Court. 3. The Appellant raised questions of law regarding the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay and the liability of the assessee to pay penalty under Section 114-A of the Customs Act, 1962. The Appellant argued that the Tribunal's decision suffered from perversity, citing decisions from the Gujarat High Court. However, the absence of specific particulars in the reasons provided by the Appellant led to the dismissal of the Appeal. Previous decisions cited by the Appellant were found not applicable to the current case. 4. The Tribunal's decision not to condone the delay was upheld, as the reasons provided by the Appellant lacked specific details. The Tribunal's reliance on the decision in Chief Post Master General was considered valid. The Appeals dismissed by the Gujarat High Court did not support the Appellant's case. As no substantial question of law arose, the Appeal was dismissed.
|
