By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, MAR 05, 2016: THE Revenue filed a Central Excise Appeal on 8th January 2013.

Some objections were raised by the High Court Registry and time was granted to remove them. Despite the endorsement "All queries removed/complied with on 14th February, 2013", the Registry had informed the advocate appearing for the Revenue that in the second set of the appeal paper-book, the exhibits were not marked as true copies; this was required as the Appeal was assigned to a Division Bench and without compliance the appeal could not be placed for admission at all.

After sufficient time to comply, the Registry listed the matter and the Prothonotary & Senior Master passed an order dismissing this appeal for want of removal of office objection. That order was passed on 30th June 2013.

A Notice of Motion seeking to set aside that order was filed by Revenue on 3rd July 2014.

Be that as it may, the Revenue has filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 422 days that occurred in applying for restoration of the appeal.

The High Court in a scathing order while rebuking the Revenue for its negligence and deliberate inaction further observed -

++ If the Revenue officials feel that it is the duty of the advocate alone and they must not follow up the cases filed in the High Court, then, they ought to be realising that the assistance and sympathy uptill now shown by this Court is grossly abused. Now it is seen as a right to ignore matters which are filed and to not attend the Court or not to depute anybody to attend the Court offices so as to render the Court Registry the requisite assistance. The Revenue and the Government is the biggest litigant in Courts.

++ First of all why there is a delay and which could be the result of its complete negligence or deliberate inaction is something which the Government must ponder and correct for itself. This Court is not going to accept the routine explanation and which in this case hardly inspires confidence.

++ The submission, intended to impress the Court, is that a lenient view be taken since the office objections are now removed and the stakes being high and, therefore, public interest is adversely affected. We are unimpressed by this.

++ The public at large is fully aware of all this and if crores of rupees are at stake, the Registry of this Court is not expected to entertain the Revenue and Government officials in a distinct manner. Equally, the Revenue officials and their advocate should be vigilant and not allow matters to go in default like in the present case.

++ They are themselves to be blamed for this mess and they cannot request the Court to accept any cause as sufficient and reasonable when that is bereft of accurate particulars, and details.

Holding that there is no merit in the Notice of Motion, the same was dismissed.

(See 2016-TIOL-407-HC-MUM-CX)