9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 751X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the goods under import are project cargo, the original case file containing the essential documents (viz. the Bill of Entry copies original, duplicate, triplicate) were to be traced from section like EPCG, Group 5A, Refunds, Appeals unit, Review Unit of Custom House, to find out the truth of the contention of the importer." 2. While in the case of MICO Industries Ltd., the Asstt. Commissioner (Review Cell) has sought for condonation of 86 days by stating as follows :- "The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was received in Custom House on 15-3-2001. The appeal ought to have been filed on or before 14-6-2001. The reason for the delay is considerable time has been spent to trace out the original documents and preparation of appeal which is purely administrative in nature and it may be condoned please." 3. The rest of the applications is common wherein they have cited the usual judgments as cited in all similar applications being filed by the Commissioner of Customs every time when there is a delay in filing the appeal. We notice that the Commissioner of Customs has got this stereo type applications to be filed through their subordinate officers as eith ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -4-2001 1 DAY AO (RC) 3-4-2001 17-4-2001 15 DAYS DC (RC) 17-4-2001 17-4-2001 1 DAY JC (RC) 17-4-2001 30-5-2001 3 DAYS DOS (RC) 30-5-2001 31-5-2001 2 DAYS AC (RC) 31-5-2001 31-5-2001 1 DAY AC (RC) 31-5-2001 11-6-2001 12 DAYS COMMIR. 11-6-2001 19-6-2001 9 DAYS APPEAL FILED ON 19-6-2001 The maximum delay (*) of 124 days and 41 days occurred in Refund section and not in review cell. (*) For delay of 124 days of Refunds section Dos (Refunds) had explained that back file was mixed with other files and it took time to trace the back file and same was accepted by DC (Refunds). For delay of 41 days Dos (Refunds) had stated that the file was lying with AO (Refunds). 6. The time-chart furnished in the case of MICO Industries Ltd. is also reproduced herein below :- TIME-CHART - FILE NO. DA 24/01 - REVIEW CELL File movement Date Number of Days O-in-A Date 14-3-01 Received in Review Cell on 15-3-01 O-in-A Received by the Dealing Assistant 19-3-01 4 1 Put up the file to EO Review Cell on 19-3-01 NIL 2 Put up the file to AO Review Cell by EO Review Cell on 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p; The Asstt. Commissioner during the material period was holding charges or Audit IAD - CRA, & Legal and due to pressure of work has lost sight of the file which was misplaced in her table. 7. Ld. DR was at pains to explain the delay in both the appeals and made a bold attempt to seek condonation. The contention of ld. DR is that the file has to move from department to department and it is not so easy to clear the file by each section. The Court has to take administrative difficulties faced by the sections and condone the delay. He referred to the salient features of the principles of condonation laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Anantanag v. Mst. Katiji - 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.) and the condonation given to the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai to file appeal against Adani Exports and Intercontinental (India) Ltd. by Misc. Order No. 186/2001, dated 10-7-2001 wherein the delay of 81 days was condoned on the ground that some clerk had gone on long leave due to intervening holidays on account of Christmas, Pongal, and Ramzan and immediately on resuming duty appeal had been made ready and filed. The Deputy Commissioner had filed the affidavit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be seen from the time-chart and in view of bald time-chart, the callous manner in which the application has been filed without seriousness, they seek for dismissal of applications. In this regard, ld. Counsel relied on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of UOI v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd., 1988 (38) E.L.T. 739 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court after noting the time-chart had clearly recorded that "there was no whisper to explain what "legal problems in filing the special leave petition arose". It appears to us that no attempt has been made to explain this delay. In that view of the matter we gave further opportunity to the petitioners to file additional affidavit explaining the cause, if any, for this delay. It is further stated in the rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit on behalf of the Respondents that "such delay is always beyond the control of especially in Government matters as the file has to be routed through several Sections of the Department". We are aware of the fact that the Government being impersonal takes longer time than the private Bodies or the individuals. Even giving that latitude, there must be some way or attempt to explain the cause for such de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner to file the appeal wherein there is no affidavit of Commissioner of Customs, Chennai supporting the COD application. We observe that similar type of COD applications have not been accepted. These type of applications are not supported by any cause for condoning the delay despite the Bench pointed out this to the Commissioner. Several COD applications which have not been accepted the Commissioner has not woken up from the slumber to take steps to file the appeal in time. We are now required to see as to whether in both the appeals the Commissioner of Customs has given sufficient reasons which can be considered as one requiring indulgence of the Court to condone the delay. As noted, the time chart clearly indicates that files have been lying in each of the said sections for days together. It is seen that file in DOS (Refunds) as in the case of Hyundai Motors Ltd. was with them for 124 days and for 41 days and again it was lying with them for 15 days. Likewise, the file has been lying in FC (RC) for 28 days and in AO (RC) for 15 days and in AC (RC) for 12 days and with the Commissioner's office for 9 days. There is no explanation given by any of these people as to both the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
