2020-TIOL-1828-HC-MAD-IT

GRD Trust Vs ACIT

Whether an intimation served to an assessee proposing to recover duty demanded is unsustainable, where such intimation has already been quashed by the CIT(A) & where such findngs are not contested by the Revenue - YES: HC

- Assessee's writ petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1827-HC-MAD-IT

Whether additional depreciation can be claimed in the succeeding AY, in case the same could not be availed of during the current AY - YES: HC

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1826-HC-MAD-IT

Whether loss suffered on account of foreign exchange fluctuations would increase the cost of the project to the extent of loss suffered by the assessee - YES: HC

Whether in such circumstances, the assessee would be eligible for deduction in respect of such loss incurred - YES: HC

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1329-ITAT-DEL

Whether assessee's appeal merits being dismissed for non prosecution, where neither appeal memo is filed, nor is the assessee's representative present on the date of hearing - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: DELHI ITAT

2020-TIOL-1328-ITAT-PUNE

Whether where an issue has been settled in favor of the assessee vide a precedent judgment, then any assessment order passed by following such precedent, does not be deemed erroneous or causing loss to Revenue - YES: ITAT

Whether therefore in such circumstances, power of revision cannot be exercised in respect of an issue which has already been examined carefully & if the assessment order is not causing prejudice to Revenue - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's Appeal Allowed: PUNE ITAT

2020-TIOL-1327-ITAT-VIZAG

Whether a trust can be granted registration u/s 12A or u/s 12AA where it has not been granted approval u/s 10(23C) - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: VISAKHAPATNAM ITAT

2020-TIOL-1310-ITAT-DEL

JKVB Properties Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether non-service of notice u/s 143(2) within prescribed time period, vitiates validity of assessment - YES: ITAT

Whether notice u/s 143(2) issued at the old address of taxpayer is void ab initio, if it was issued at the old address even though the AO was made aware of the new address - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT

2020-TIOL-1309-ITAT-BANG

Jairam G Kimmane Vs DCIT

Whether mere fact that a land is situated outside the area referred to in clause (a) or (b) of sec.2(14)(iii), does not automatically make it an Agricultural land and such land has to be used for agricultural purposes to be construed as "Agricultural land" - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: BANGALORE ITAT

2020-TIOL-1308-ITAT-PUNE

Angre Port Pvt Ltd Vs Pr CIT

Whether where expenses are incurred in respect of a capital asset, such expenses do not mechanically become capital in nature - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed" PUNE ITAT

2020-TIOL-1307-ITAT-KOL

ACIT Vs Eastern Coalfields Ltd

Whether ad hoc disallowance of expenditure incurred on account of CSR expenses can be made - NO : ITAT

- Case Remanded: KOLKATA ITAT

2020-TIOL-1306-ITAT-JAIPUR

ACIT Vs Bitthal Das Parwal

Whether CBDT Circular no. 23 of 2019 should be read along with special order of the CBDT dated 16.09.2019 in respect of appeals filed pursuant to special order and shall apply to all appeals filed on or after 16.09.2019 by the Revenue where the tax effect may be low but the appeal can still be filed by the Revenue on merits - YES: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: JAIPUR ITAT

2020-TIOL-1305-ITAT-JAIPUR

DCIT Vs Veena Goyal

Whether when there is neither any payment nor the company made any advance or loan to the taxpayer, then debit balance worked out by the taxpayer company will not fall within the ambit of section 2(22)(e) - YES: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: JAIPUR ITAT

BMW India Financial Services Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Petitioner is aggrieved by denial of transitioning the credit of Rs.17,07,673/- after the submission of declaration in Form GST TRAN-1 on 27th December, 2017 for the unit in Maharashtra; that post filing of the Form, it also received a confirmation e-mail from 'do not reply @gst.gov.in in confirming the successful filing of the transition Form by the Petitioner - Petitioner submits that the said failure is due to the technical glitches in the Respondents GSTN portal as GSTN has been beset with technical glitches which has defeated the Petitioner's substantive right to transition tax credit for no fault of the Petitioner - Petitioner has also averred that once it has sought for transition of credit by filing Form GST TRAN - 1 within the prescribed time a vested right accrues in its favour and the same cannot be taken away by reason of mere technical lapses not attributable to the Petitioner; that, therefore, they are seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to take such actions as may be necessary for transitioning the credit of Rs.17,07,673/- as filed by the Petitioner in Form GST TRAN-1 on 27.12.2017 to avail the credit of Rs.17,07,673/- either electronically or manually - Respondent submits that Petitioner has not produced any evidence to validate its claim of technical glitch, still the application was timely forwarded to MAHAVIKAS Branch of the Maharashtra GST Department through proper channel and also to the GSTN; that the Petitioner's application was put up before the 1st meeting of IT-Grievance Redressal Committee (ITGRC) but the same was not approved.

Held: In this case, Bench is not examining the issue whether the Petitioner is entitled to VAT tax credit as claimed by the Petitioner which will be examined by the authorities - What Bench is concerned with is that despite the admitted successful filing of Form TRAN-1 by the Petitioner on 27th December, 2017, the request of the Petitioner for transitioning of credit has not been approved by the ITGRC merely on the basis that there were no technical glitches on the GSTN side - There is no further explanation or clarification or evidence on the issue by the Respondents - The whole objective of digitization is to convenience the taxpayers and not to harass them - Bench is conscious that the GST system is still evolving in its implementation; that merely because there were no technical glitches in the GSTN with respect to the Petitioner's TRAN-1 which was admittedly filed in time, the claim of the Petitioner, if it was otherwise eligible in law, cannot be rejected for no apparent fault on the part of the Petitioner - This cannot be the objective of the GST system or digitisation - Such a situation cannot be countenanced as it would be wholly unfair and unjust - Accordingly, Bench directs the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner and after looking into the merits of the claim and physically or otherwise verifying the amount of VAT as claimed by the Petitioner take such actions as may be necessary for transitioning the credit of such amount into the Petitioner's credit ledger/ electronic credit ledger within four weeks - Bench makes it clear that it has not examined the merits of the case nor the Petitioner's claim to VAT credit - Petition is allowed in above terms: High Court [para 21, 22, 24, 25, 26]

- Petition allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1825-HC-KERALA-GST

Bon Cargos Pvt Ltd Vs Assistant State Tax Officer (INT)

GST - During the relevant period, two vehicles belonging to the petitioner-company were intercepted by the Revenue - These vehicles were ferrying goods meant for intra-State transport, but with different consignors and consignee - As per the accounting practice, the consignors had generated e-way bill for two invoices separately though the GST regime did not require eway bill where the value of the consignment is less than Rs.50,000/- - The Revenue nonetheless detained the consignment u/s 129(3) of the CGST Act - Hence the present petitions were filed.

Held - Emphatic reliance upon the interpretation of Rule 7 that it is the duty of the transporter or the consignor, consignee to generate e-way bill when the aggregate value of the consignment is more than Rs 50,000/- and if otherwise ie., less than Rs 50,000/- there is no such requirement is not acceptable and of no avail in view of the provisions of sub Rules 3 and 7 of Rule 138 of CGST Act - Rules have to be read in conjunction and not in isolation - On plain and simple reading of proviso to Sub Rule 3 it is evident that registered person or transporter at his option is obliged to generate and carry e-way bill even if the value of the consignment is less than Rs.50,000/- - The orders under challenge in my view are amaenable to appeal as per the provisions of Section 107 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - In view of the interpretation of the Rules as High Court under Article 226 cannot assume the role of an appellate court - In all cases of seizure in order to obliterate inconsistency in the application of law and do away with the multiple appeals, discretion has been left to the competent authority to decide the adjudication as early as possible in accordance with law - Hence the present petitions merit being dismissed, as they are devoid of merit: HC

- Writ petitions dismissed: KERALA HIGH COURT

Smookey Kitchen Foods OPC Pvt Ltd

GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - complainant has alleged that the respondent has increased the base prices of his products and not passed on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate from 18% to 5% w.e.f 15.11.2017 - DGAP in its report dated 28.01.2020 has concluded that the allegation of profiteering stood confirmed against the respondent inasmuch as the respondent had maintained the same selling prices or not reduced the selling prices of the products commensurately despite a reduction in GST rate and the amount profiteered comes to Rs.6,49,397/-.

Held: Authority observes that the case pertains to a franchisee of M/s Subway India Private Limited in Ghaziabaad who is supplying various food products to his recipients/customers; that there has been a reduction in rate of tax from 18% to 5% w.e.f 15.11.2017 on the restaurant service being supplied by the respondent with the conditionality of denial of ITC - DGAP has in its clarificatory report dated 14.06.2020 submitted that while computing the quantum of profiteering the sales data of World Sandwich Day (WSD) on 03.11.2017 has been excluded while working out the product-wise base prices for the pre-tax rate reduction period i.e. from 01.11.2017 to 14.11.2017; that under this offer the respondent was offering one similar product free for every product purchased by a customer on 03.11.2017 (Buy One Get One BOGO offer); that the DGAP has reported that the sales data of the WSD was excluded because the sales data of 03.11.2017 was an outlier and hence an exception - Authority finds this exclusion improper because in several similar cases pertaining to other franchisees of M/s Subway India, the sales data of WSD was not excluded while computing profiteering and hence the method used for computation of profiteering becomes an aberration and unacceptable - Authority, under the powers conferred on it under rule 133(4) read with section 171 of the Act directs DGAP to reinvestigate this case and recompute the quantum of profiteering by duly incorporating the sales data of the World Sandwich Day as on 03.11.2017 in the calculation of the pre-tax rate reduction prices - due to Covid pandemic and read with notification 65/2020-CT, present order is being passed although it is beyond the period prescribed under rule 133(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017: NAA

- Interim order passed: NAA

Devi 70 MM

GST - Anti-Profiteering - DGAP in its report dated 27.12.2019 stated that the respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate on ‘Services by way of admission to exhibition of cinematograph films where price of admission ticket was one hundred rupees or less' from 18% to 12% which came into effect from 01.01.2019; that the respondent had instead increased the base price of the tickets; that the profiteered amount is arrived as Rs.1,29,243/- for the period January 2019 to June 2019 (excluding the period from 11.03.2019 to 08.05.2019) - a supplementary report was also received from DGAP on 26.02.2020 on the submissions made by the respondent and a further reply was received from the respondent by email dated 18.06.2020.

Held:  Authority is not a price regulator - It is a fact that the price of the First and Second Class movie tickets has been reduced commensurately by respondent w.e.f 11.03.2019, therefore, the period from 11.03.2019 has no relevance from the perspective of s.171 of the Act and hence no profiteering can be established for the period after 11.03.2019 - However,  since the respondent has increased the price of the movie tickets of the first and second class categories only in the month of May 2019, this price increase cannot be correlated to the provisions of s.171 of the Act - DGAP has also reported that in the post-tax rate reduction period, the respondent has maintained the same base prices in respect of the Upper and Lower balcony categories of move tickets and, hence, Authority observes that there is no profiteering in the above category of these movie tickets - Therefore, though profiteering has been established against the respondent in the categories of First class and Second class movie tickets, the computation of profiteering merits to be limited only up to 10.03.2019 as respondent has reduced the base prices commensurately for the  First class and Second class movie tickets after 11.03.2019 - No profiteering can thus arise for the period after 11.03.2019 - This is, therefore, a fit case for recomputation of the profiteered amount - Under the provisions of rule 133(4) of the Rules, 2017, Authority directs DGAP to recompute the amount and furnish his report under rule 129(6) of the Rules - present order is passed on 08.10.2020, after considering the pandemic prevalent and the notification 65/2020-CT, although the same is beyond the date prescribed under rule 129(6) of the Rules: NAA

- Interim order passed: NAA

IO No. 20/2020

Mataji Paints & Hardware 

GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Applicant alleges that the respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of GST on paints from 28% to 18% w.e.f 27.07.2018 and instead had increased the base prices of the paints sold by him thus denying the benefit of commensurate reduction in the cum-tax price to the recipients - Copies of sales invoices were submitted in support and which revealed that the respondent had increased the per-unit base price from Rs.4062.73 to Rs.4322.25 when the rate of GST was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f 27.07.2018 - DGAP in its report dated 29.03.2019 submitted that the respondent who supplied the above products viz. Paints, varnishes and putty was impacted with the above notification in the case of 331 products; that out of the 331 products, only in the case of 151 products the base prices were increased denying the benefit of reduction of the rate of tax to the recipients - DGAP, has in his report not expressly mentioned as to how it had been concluded that the base prices had been increased by the respondent and it appears that the DGAP had arrived at the profiteered amount by comparing the average prices of the various products taking into account the prices of the products before rate reduction (01.07.2018 to 26.07.2018) with the actual selling prices of the products after rate reduction (27.07.2018 to 30.09.2018) - the report also does not elaborate on how the per-unit base prices for the two periods were arrived at and, therefore, this calculation made by DGAP requires further clarification - in the interest of justice and to determine the profiteered amount based on complete submissions made by the respondent, this Authority directed the DGAP to reinvestigate the following issues viz. to re-examine the pre-rate reduction per unit price for the period before 27.07.2018 and specifically state the calculation as to how it has been arrived at; to re-examine whether the per-unit price before 27.07.2018 is a discounted price and if so whether the comparable price is also a discounted price etc. - subsequently DGAP submitted a comprehensive report dated 10.10.2019 after reinvestigation and concluded therein that the total amount of profiteering covering the period 27.07.2018 to 30.09.2018 is worked out as Rs.3,76,360/-.

Held: Profiteered amount has been computed by comparing the average pre-rate reduction base prices of the impacted products with the monthly average post rate reduction base prices in respect of both the tax reductions - the above mathematical methodology adopted by the DGAP to compute the profiteered amount is not in line with the methodology adopted by the DGAP himself in similar cases of profiteering wherein the average pre-rate reduction base prices have been compared with the actual post rate reduction prices to compute the profiteered amount; that in case the mathematical methodology of comparing the average to average base prices employed by the DGAP is adopted, it would not be possible to compute the benefit of tax reduction which is due to each customer on each supply - The profiteered amount computed by the DGAP would also not be correct, hence the methodology adopted is not correct, logical, appropriate and in consonance with the provisions of s.171 of the Act, 2017 - The reports dated 29.03.2019 and 10.10.2019 furnished by the DGAP cannot be accepted, therefore, the DGAP is directed to reinvestigate the above case under rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and submit a report - DGAP is directed to compare the average pre-rate reduction base prices of the products which were impacted by the tax rate reduction w.e.f 27.07.2018 with the actual post rate reduction base prices of the impacted products - Present order is passed in terms of notification 35/2020-CT considering the pandemic situation: NAA

- Interim order passed: NAA  

SERVICE TAX

2020-TIOL-1567-CESTAT-HYD

Prasad Media Corporation Pvt Ltd Vs CCT  

ST - The appellant was set up under Public Private Partnership initiative of Government of Andhra Pradesh and commenced their commercial activities which are mainly in the nature of Food Court and Entertainment facility in July, 2003 - Thereafter, the appellant company converted into a Private Limited company since 18.07.2012 - The appellant is registered with Service Tax Department under category of sale of space or time for advertisement, renting of immovable properties, management and maintenance or repair service - During Audit, it appeared to Revenue that the appellant have not paid service tax on the amount received towards letting/licensing of the premises to outside parties, for renting/managing food Court, parking fee and certain entertainment zone - Thus, the dispute relates to demand of service tax on income/receipts - The issue of service tax on share of revenue from Joint commercial activity 'Food Court' is already settled in favour of appellant by precedent order of Tribunal in their own case - Accordingly, the demand of Rs. 37,31,953/- is set aside - So far the rent from immovable property is concerned, the value of Rs.49,82,795/- is the amount of municipal taxes paid which is not taxable and is deductable amount from the rent receipt in terms of exemption granted vide Notfn 29/2012-ST - Accordingly, the demand of Rs. 6,15,873/- is set aside - So far the issue of taxability of receipts on Fun Factory is concerned, this issue is already adjudicated in favour of appellant in the precedent decision of Tribunal dated 01.01.2019 wherein the Tribunal held that receipts under this head are in the nature of receipt towards entertainment provided and the same is taxable under the State Entertainment Tax Act and hence not exigible to service tax - So far the issue of parking receipts is concerned, it is demonstrated that the appellant had paid the admitted tax of Rs.22,17,764/- against the demand of Rs. 12,62,642/- - Hence, the service tax demanded vide impugned order is not disputed, is taxable and paid - Further, admitted tax is more than the assessed tax - So far the demand of Rs. 87,67,255/- under Rule 6(3) is concerned, appellant made a categorical averment that they have maintained separate account of input services and there is no utilisation of common input services towards providing of exempt services - Although the appellant had prayed for verification of their records to verify the correctness of their claim, but no such opportunity was provided and by adopting a pedantic approach the demand was confirmed - Hence, this demand is set aside and matter is remanded without expressing any opinion on merits leaving the issue open to the adjudicating authority after following the principles of natural justice - The appellant is also directed to co-operate with the adjudicating authority by leading evidences in support of their contention as to non availment of cenvat credit on common input services and for non utilisation of such input service for exempt service - The issue being wholly interpretational and there being no case of suppression or fraud, penalty imposed under Section 76 and Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules are fit to be set aside: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: HYDERABAD CESTAT

CENTRAL EXCISE

2020-TIOL-1568-CESTAT-AHM

Panoli Intermediates India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX – Issue is whether Di Calcium Phosphate Animal Feed Grade manufactured by the appellant using rock phosphate shall be classified under Chapter 2309 as declared by the appellant or under Chapter 2835 has claimed by the Revenue,

Held: Bench finds that whether the Di Calcium Phosphate Animal Feed Grade is classifiable under chapter heading 2309 or under 2835, it is prima facie covered under exemption Notification No. 04/2016-C.E. (N.T.) issued under section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Applicability of this notification is vital to decide the issue in hand but since both the lower authorities have passed the order before issuance of the Notification No. 04/2016-C.E.(N.T.) , therefore, they did not have occasion to deal with this notification which has retrospective effect and it covers the period involved in the present case - Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed by way of the remand to the adjudicating authority – as the matter is quite old, the adjudicating authority is to pass order within three months: CESTAT [para 4]

- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

CUSTOMS

2020-TIOL-1831-HC-MUM-CUS

Ram Ratna International Vs UoI

Cus - Following the judgment of the Supreme Court, Respondent No.2 issued Notification No. 6/2015-2020 dated 08.05.2017 making the amendment to the Target Plus Scheme effective prospectively rescinding the Notification No . 08 of 2006 dated 12.06.2006 - This was followed by Trade Notice No. 06 of 2018 , also dated 08.05.2017 - In view of the trade notice, Petitioner wrote to Respondent No.3 vide letter dated 30.05.2017 stating that Petitioner was eligible to claim the remaining benefit of 10% (15% - 5%) under the scheme for the incremental growth in exports for the year 2005-2006 and requested the said authority to issue the balance scrips at the earliest - Respondent No.3 issued letter dated 08.03.2018 to the Petitioner directing it to submit revised no dues certificate - Responding to the said letter, Petitioner submitted revised no dues certificate on 18.04.2018 and requested Respondent No.3 to issue the additional scrips - Unfortunately, there was no reply by Respondent No.3 - Aggrieved by such inaction of Respondent No.3, Petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition seeking the relief.

Held:

+ Target Plus Scheme is a beneficial provision with the objective to accelerate growth in exports by giving incentives to those export houses whose exports show an annual upward trend. Initially the benefits were graded i.e., 5%, 10% and 15% depending upon the percentage of incremental growth in exports. Petitioner fell within the 15% category for the year 2005-2006. Thereafter, by an amendment on 12.06.2006, the percentage of incentives was made uniform i.e., 5% which was given retrospective effect from 01.04.2005.

+ On intervention of the Supreme Court, the retrospectivity was removed and the amendment was given effect prospectively from 12.06.2006. Petitioner was granted the 5% benefit for the year 2005-2006. After the Supreme Court intervention, Petitioner is entitled to the balance 10% benefit for the same period for which the 5% benefit was granted being within the 15% category.

+ When one part of the benefit for a year was given, question of withholding of the remaining benefit for the same year does not arise. Exports are of the year 2005-2006. We are now in 2020. 14 years have lapsed in between. Such inordinate delay can only frustrate the very objective of the scheme.

+ Word 'dues' means something which is payable. Juxtaposing the word 'dues' with the word 'government', the expression 'government dues' would mean something which is payable to and enforceable by the government on account of a legal obligation or a contract. Therefore, the amount due has to be first quantified by following the due process and as explained by the Supreme Court in the context of the scheme it should be payable to the government and subsisting i.e., not paid.

+ It is seen that no amount of dues stated to be pending against the government has been mentioned. There is no reference to any demand or demand notice or quantification of any government dues. Alleged non-submission of Bank Realization Certificate after receipt of foreign currency/ remittance on successful completion of an export cannot be construed to be a due, not to speak of any pending government due.

+ In any case, Respondents have already granted to the Petitioner partial benefit under the Target Plus Scheme vide licence dated 14.02.2007 i.e., scrips to the extent of 5% of the incremental export growth for the year 2005-2006. Present claim pertains to remaining 10% on the said export growth for the same period. When the Respondents had already issued the licence and had granted partial benefit to the Petitioner under the Target Plus Scheme on 14.02.2007, there cannot be any valid and justifiable reason for non-release of the balance amount of benefit which has now become due to the Petitioner. Withholding of the same is not at all justified.

+ Respondents are directed to issue the necessary licence to the Petitioner for the balance/additional benefit of duty credit scrips for the amount of Rs.4,22,16,175.00 for the year 2005- 2006 under the Target Plus Scheme within a period of four weeks.

- Petition allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1830-HC-MAD-CUS

Fourceess Diamonds Pvt Ltd Vs JCC

Cus - Respondent by Order in Original dated 22.02.2016 had demanded differential duty with interest and penalty for import of goods made by the Petitioner - Petitioner was entitled to prefer appeal against that order under Section 128 of the Act, within a period of 60 days from the date of its receipt before the Commissioner(A) but no such appeal was preferred and a Writ Petition was filed on 11.04.2016 challenging the order passed.

Held: There is no acceptable explanation from the Petitioner for not having resorted to the alternative remedy provided under the statute - Supreme Court in Dunlop India Limited = 2002-TIOL-156-SC-CX-LB has succinctly explained the legal position relating to the exercise of discretionary powers under writ jurisdiction inasmuch as it is held that Article 226 is not meant to short-circuit or circumvent statutory procedures; that it is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations that recourse may be had to Article 226 of the Constitution - Court does not express any view on the correctness or otherwise on the merits of the controversy involved in the present matter – In the result, the Writ Petition, which cannot be entertained, is dismissed: High Court [para 3, 4]

- Petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1566-CESTAT-DEL

Sumridhi Aluminium Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - Delay of about 211 to 228 days - The assessee is a manufacturer of Aluminium and Non-Alloys Ingots which are cleared on payment of duty - They mainly imports aluminium scrap, the main raw material on regular basis - For each consignment, they filed Bills of Entry under self assessment, on the transaction value - But, as a matter of routine, the Customs Officer have been loading the transaction value arbitrarily - The assesesee for getting the clearance to avoid demurrage, deposited the duty and tax - However, being aggrieved, assessee preferred appeals against the various Bills of Entry assessed under Section 17(5) before Commissioner (A) - The delay is apparently attributable to the incident of theft which occurred in the first week of February, 2019 wherein the Supervisor Shri Mahipal was also involved, and he was the key person who has received the orders on behalf of assessee - Further, due to this incident there was disturbance in the normal functioning of the office of assessee and from 02.02.2019 Shri Mahipal suddenly left the job without any notice period and without informing any responsible person regarding the receipt of impugned orders and appeals to be filed - Further, it is evident from the record that assessee has not slept over the case - After hearing before the Commissioner (A), they have been making enquiries from time to time regarding status of their appeals, particularly vide letters dated 15.11.2018 and 20.05.2019 - It is evident from the record that the assessee traced the impugned orders on 21.07.2019 - Thereafter, assessee have taken steps and filed the appeals without any deliberate delay or latches - Such facts have been supported by affidavit of the ex-employee, Shri Mahipal and affidavit of the Director of assessee, Shri Anil Kanodia and also copy of correspondence with the office of Commissioner (A) from time to time - Accordingly, there is reasonable cause for the delay in preferring these appeals which have been properly explained - The condonation of delay applications allowed subject to lumpsum cost of Rs. 1 lakh to be paid in the 'Prime Minister Cares Fund' - Such amount to be deposited within a period of two months: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT