2019 (11) TMI 1171 - HC - Customs

Condonation of delay of 486 days in filing appeal - sufficient reason for condonation of delay or not - HELD THAT - The effect of the orders passed by this Court in earlier appeals, setting aside similar impugned orders is that rather than the Adjudicating Authority, it is the CESTAT itself that would now undertake the required exercise. Pertinently, it were the appeals of the assessees/Respondents on which the impugned order had been passed. The effect of the impugned order is to await the decision of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS MANGALI IMPEX LTD. 2016 (8) TMI 1181 - SC ORDER and then the case is to be decided on merits. This would delay the proceedings, and the same would neither be in the interest of the Revenue, nor in the interest of the assessee. The objection of the Respondents to the condonation of delay is rejected - application allowed.

Issues:
1. Appeals against orders of CESTAT.
2. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
3. Opposition to condonation of delay.
4. Precedents related to condonation of delay.
5. Setting aside impugned orders.
6. Remitting the matter to CESTAT for examination.
7. Directions to CESTAT for further proceedings.

Analysis:

1. Appeals against orders of CESTAT:
The appeals were directed against orders passed by the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in customs appeals filed by the Respondents. The impugned orders in each case listed the appeal number, date of the order, and the respective Respondent.

2. Condonation of delay in filing appeals:
The appeals were accompanied by applications seeking condonation of delay, totaling around 486 days. The Appellant argued that similar appeals decided by the Court previously directed CESTAT to independently assess jurisdiction and decide on merits, including penalties. Approximately 500 such appeals had been filed over time, and directing CESTAT to determine the issues would not prejudice the Respondent.

3. Opposition to condonation of delay:
The Respondents opposed the condonation of delay, citing substantial delay and referring to a Supreme Court order rejecting a similar plea in another case due to a delay of 728 days.

4. Precedents related to condonation of delay:
The Court considered the explanation provided by the Appellant and the potential prejudice to the Respondent if the delay was condoned. Previous orders by the Court set aside similar CESTAT orders, directing CESTAT to independently assess jurisdiction and decide on the merits of the appeals.

5. Setting aside impugned orders:
Based on previous decisions, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter to CESTAT for further examination. The Tribunal was instructed to assess the merits of the appeal, including penalties, and to hear parties on jurisdiction issues, if necessary, considering a specific case pending in the Supreme Court.

6. Remitting the matter to CESTAT for examination:
The Court rejected the Respondents' objection to condonation of delay, allowing the applications and condoning the delay. The matter was remitted to CESTAT for further proceedings based on the Court's directions.

7. Directions to CESTAT for further proceedings:
The Court directed CESTAT to examine the merits of the appeal, including penalties, and to consider jurisdiction issues if needed. The Tribunal was instructed to issue reasonable notice to the assessees for the appeal hearing and record separate findings, subject to the final outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings. The Court expressed no opinion on the specific procedures CESTAT should follow.

In conclusion, the appeals were allowed and disposed of as per the Court's directions, setting the stage for further proceedings before CESTAT with specific instructions on jurisdiction and merits assessment.

← Previous Next →