2019 (6) TMI 979 - HC - Customs

Condonation of 484 days delay in filing an appeal - no proper explanation given for condonation of delay - HELD THAT - There is no attempt even made to explain the delay from 13th June, 2017 when the Principal Commissioner of Customs sought information of likelihood of success in appeal along with grounds of appeal till 5th September, 2018 when the file was again put up before the Principal Commissioner of Customs. This inaction shows negligence on the part of the Revenue in challenging the order dated 18th April, 2017 of the Tribunal in time. On being asked whether any responsibility has been fixed for the delay, we were informed that it is a separate issue. Thus no sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay - Notice of Motion is dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing an appeal from the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing Appeal: The application sought condonation of a 484-day delay in filing an appeal from the order dated 18th April, 2017, passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The applicant filed an additional affidavit explaining the delay, stating that the order was received on 22nd May, 2017, and various actions were taken by the Revenue leading to the delayed filing of the appeal.

2. Merits of the Appeal: The applicant's counsel argued that the issue in the appeal stands concluded in favor of the applicant based on previous court decisions. Specifically, reliance was placed on the decisions of the Court in Principal Commissioner of Customs Vs. Unison Clearing Pvt. Ltd. and Commissioner of Customs Vs. Fugro Survey (Middle East) Ltd. to support the applicant's case.

3. Negligence of the Revenue: The Court noted that there was a significant delay from the time the Principal Commissioner of Customs sought information on the appeal until the file was put up for appeal, indicating negligence on the part of the Revenue in challenging the Tribunal's order in a timely manner. The Court highlighted the lack of action taken by the Revenue during this period as a sign of negligence.

4. Basis for Condoning Delay: The Court found that the reliance placed on previous court decisions by the Revenue was not sufficient to condone the long delay in filing the appeal. The Court emphasized that the appeal seemed to have been filed only after a particular court decision, which was not a valid basis for condonation of such a lengthy delay.

5. Comparison with Previous Cases: The Court compared the present case with a previous decision where a longer delay was condoned due to specific circumstances, highlighting that the facts in the present case were different. The Court concluded that there was no sufficient cause made out for condoning the delay and subsequently dismissed the Notice of Motion seeking condonation of delay.

In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal from the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, citing negligence on the part of the Revenue and insufficient grounds for condoning the delay.