SIGN IN SUBSCRIBE

News Update

Requisite Checks for Appeals - RespondentInheritance Tax row - A golden opportunity to end 32-years long Policy Paralysis on DTCThe Heat is on: Preserving Earth's Climate in the Face of Global WarmingVAT - Timeline for frefund must be followed mandatorily while recovering dues under Delhi VAT Act: SCIndia, Australia to work closely for collaborative projectsCX - All the information was available to department in 2003 itself, therefore, SCN issued four years after gathering information is not sustainable and is highly barred by limitation: HCPowerful voices of amazing women leaders resonated at UN HqsCX - Clearance to sister concern for captive consumption - Department cannot compel assessee to perpetuate the illegality and in such circumstances the whole exercise was revenue neutral: HC75 International visitors from 23 countries arrive to watch world's largest elections unfoldCentre asks States to improve organ donation frequencyCus - Revenue involved in the appeal filed by Commissioner is far below the threshold monetary limit fixed by the CBEC, therefore, department cannot proceed with this appeal - Appeal stands disposed of: HCPM says NO to religion-based reservationCus - Export of non-basmati rice - Since the objective of Central Government in imposing ban with immediate effect was to avert a food crisis in the country, a strict compliance of exemption conditions would further the said intent of the Notification(s): HCAdani Port to develop port in PhilippinesCX - Appellant should not be left without an opportunity to put-forth his case on merits, particularly, when matter was decided during period of Covid-19 pandemic and also appellant contends that no opportunity of virtual hearing was granted by adjudicating authority: HCKiller floods - 228 killed in Kenya + 78 in BrazilI-T - Grant of registration u/s 12A can't be denied by invoking Sec 13(1)(b), as provisions of section 13 would be attracted only at time of assessment and not at time of grant of registration: ITATFlight cancellation case: Qantas accepts USD 66 mn penaltyI-T- Joint ownership in two residential properties at the time of sale of the original asset does not disentitle the assessee to claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act: ITATIsrael shuts down Al Jazeera; seizes broadcast equipmentI-T - If assessee was prevented from production of evidences because of its non-availability or delay in its retrieval coupled with ongoing several reassessment, assessee should be allowed to adduce additional evidence: ITATIndia to wait for Canadian Police inputs on arrest of men accused of killing Sikh separatist: JaishankarI-T- If assessee is otherwise found eligible, CIT(E) should grant provisional approval to assessee under Clause (iii) to First Proviso to section 80G(5): ITATLabour Party candidate Sadiq Khan wins record third term as London MayorI-T - Donation made to trust which is otherwise not approved during relevant period as per CBDT Circular, is not eligible for deduction u/s 35(1): ITATGovt scraps ban on export of onionI-T- Assessee could have filed application in Form No.10AB on or before 30.09.2022, which assessee failed to do : ITATUS Nurse convicted of killing 17 patients - 700 yrs of jail-term awardedI-T- AO erred in making addition for completed/non abated assessment as no incriminating material found during course of search :ITAT
 
CX - 825 days delay in filing appeal by Revenue - explanation is not at all satisfactory and thoroughly vague - delay not condoned: High Court

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JULY 20, 2013: A Notice of Motion was moved by the CCE, Mumbai-III for condonation of delay of 825 days in filing the Central Excise Appeal u/s 35G of the CEA, 1944 from the order of CESTAT dated 12 March 2010.

The Revenue submitted that the delay had occurred due to the fact that the appellant was prosecuting bonafide its application for rectification of mistake and thereafter the Writ Petition in this Court. Inasmuch as sufficient cause has been shown for the delay in filing the appeal, the same may be condoned, pleaded the Revenue.

Incidentally, against the order dated 17 th January, 2011 of the CESTAT dismissing the application for rectification, the CCE, Mumbai-III filed a Writ Petition on 30 th January, 2012 before the Bombay High Court.

The explanation offered in the affidavit in support of the delay in filing the appeal is as under:

"I say that the said delay is neither deliberate nor intentional but has occurred due to procedural formalities, which were required to be complied with by the different officials in the department in different stages of processing the papers. I say that in government offices, the matters are not decided by one authority alone but the papers are processed for approval and sanction by chain of officers from lower rung to the top, who are required to consider the case on merits and propose action to be taken and the said proposal from the lower rung is considered by superior authorities at different stages and ultimately the final sanction is accorded. I say that this process consumes reasonable time."

The High Court observed that even if it is assumed that the appellant had sufficient cause for the time taken in filing the application for rectification of mistake, there is no satisfactory explanation for the period of one year between 17 January 2011 when the application for rectification was dismissed by CESTAT and 30 January 2012 when the Writ Petition was filed in this Court. As regards the affidavit filed, the High Court remarked that the explanation was not at all satisfactory and thoroughly vague.

The High Court cited the Supreme Court decision in Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., (2012-TIOL-123-SC-LMT) and observed that the affidavit in support of the Motion does not give any explanation for the delay but merely states that the process takes reasonable time and moreover when the petitioners filed the Writ petition on 30 January 2012 the time to file an appeal under Section 35G of the Act had already expired.

After taking a look at the merits of the order of the CESTAT, the High Court observed that the Counsel for the Revenue was relying on the LB decision in BDH Industries Ltd. [2008-TIOL-1211-CESTAT-MUM] (which had already been considered by CESTAT in the impugned order and was distinguished as inapplicable) but was unable to point out as to why the distinction made by the CESTAT in the impugned order was not correct.

Holding that the High Court was not inclined to condone the gross delay in filing the appeal, the Notice of motion was dismissed.

(See 2013-TIOL-567-HC-MUM-CX)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

TIOL Tube
Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.

TOP NEWS

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

VISION 360



Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.

TII LATEST

TIOLCORPLAWS LATEST