By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, AUG 29, 2017: A SCN was issued on 26th July 2007 for denial of CENVAT Credit of Rs.1,74,10,417/-.

The demand was confirmed by order dated 22nd October 2008.

The CESTAT by an order dated 30th April, 2009 directed the Appellant to deposit the entire amount within six weeks and the matter was fixed on 15th June 2009 for compliance. On account of the failure of the Appellant to make the payment of pre-deposit amount, the appeal was dismissed.

An application was filed for recalling the above order, however, the CESTAT by its order dated 14.10.2011 declined to restore the appeal.

This order has been challenged by the appellant by filing an appeal before the Delhi High Court.

The High Court pointed out to the appellant that without challenging the order dated 30th April 2009 passed by the CESTAT, it would serve no purpose if the Appellant challenged only the order dated 14th October 2011 passed by the CESTAT, declining to recall the order dated 15th June 2009. Further, if the delay is computed with reference to the order dated 30th April 2009 of the CESTAT, then the delay in filing the present appeal would be far beyond 1825 days.

When asked to explain the extraordinary delay, the Appellant informed that the sole proprietor was undergoing medical treatment; that the father of the Proprietor expired; the Proprietor of the Appellant was busy and could not pursue the filing of an appeal.

It was also pointed out that the Appellant had filed a writ petition challenging the aforementioned order dated 14th October 2011 of the CESTAT and the same came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 17th March 2017 on the ground that the Appellant should file an appeal against the said order instead of a writ petition. In the said order, it was also noted that an appeal was earlier filed in the High Court some time in 2012 but was returned under office objection and thereafter not re-filed.

The Appellant had no satisfactory explanation as to why they did not follow up the above appeal filed in 2012 and why they waited till 2017.

So, the High Court held -

"8. While that is understandable, the indulgence of the Court cannot be granted to a litigant who is far from diligent in pursuing his remedies. It is plain that, at every stage, the Appellant did not care to follow up the matter diligently and, in such circumstances, the Court is not inclined to condone the extraordinary delay of 1825 days in filing the present appeal."

The application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was dismissed. Consequently, the appeal was also dismissed.

(See 2017-TIOL-1680-HC-DEL-CX)