2019 (8) TMI 318 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay of 887 days in filing this motion - extension of time for removal of office objections granted by this Court - HELD THAT - In the present facts, the applicant had failed to remove the office objections and as directed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master on 1st March, 2016. This Court granted their application by restoring the appeal subject to the applicants removing the office objections within 4 weeks. However, the applicant failed to act upon the same and the affidavit as originally filed did not indicate how and when the applicants realized that the order of this Court was not complied with, time was taken to file an additional affidavit. The additional affidavit as filed also does not indicate as to when the applicant came to know that they had not complied with the order dated 23rd June, 2017 of this Court. Thus, the date when they came to know of non-compliance of the order is critical in any application for condonation of delay, as if the above is accepted the time taken thereafter needs to be explained. The affidavit and additional affidavit are both silent on this aspect. The application for condonation of delay in taking out the motion is rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing motion seeking to extend time for removal of office objections granted by the Court.

Analysis:
1. The application was filed to condone a delay of 887 days in filing a motion to extend the time for removal of office objections as per the Court's order dated 23rd June, 2017.
2. The applicant's appeal was dismissed on 15th March, 2016 due to non-removal of office objections, leading to a subsequent motion (No.442 of 2017) seeking to set aside the self-operating order dated 1st March, 2016. The Court allowed the appeal conditionally, requiring the office objections to be removed within four weeks from 23rd June, 2017.
3. The motion seeking an extension of four weeks from the current date was filed as the applicants failed to remove the office objections as directed. The initial affidavit mentioned non-compliance due to the implementation of Goods and Services Act, 2017, but did not specify when the non-compliance was noticed, leading to a delay in filing an additional affidavit by the Revenue.
4. An additional affidavit filed by the Revenue explained that the non-compliance was due to officers being occupied with the implementation of Goods and Services Tax and restructuring of Commissionerates. The delay of 887 days was sought to be condoned based on these reasons.
5. The Court noted that the applicant failed to remove the office objections as directed initially and did not provide a clear timeline of when they realized the non-compliance. The lack of clarity in the affidavits regarding the timing of non-compliance was deemed critical for condonation of delay.
6. Due to the absence of information on when the applicant became aware of the non-compliance with the Court's order, the application for condonation of delay was rejected, leading to the dismissal of the Notice of Motion without considering an extension of time for removing the office objections.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the sequence of events leading to the application, and the Court's reasoning behind rejecting the motion for condonation of delay.