By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, MAY 16, 2016: AGAINST an order passed by the Commissioner (A), the Senior Post Master, Akola has filed an appeal before the CESTAT.

The appellant has also sought condonation of delay of about one year and eight months in filing the appeal.

The appeal was listed for decision on maintainability as the standard documentation evidencing pre-deposit had not been filed with the appeal.

The dispute relates to the period from April 2007 to March 2012 and it is the contention of the appellant that business earnings are transferred to Director of Accounts (Postal), Nagpur who deposits the tax dues under service tax head by book adjustment. Certificate dated 24th April 2015 furnished by the said official for payment of Rs.60,28,509/- has been submitted before the Bench. In view of this certificate evidencing full payment of the disputed amount, the SCN issued by the Registry was discharged and the miscellaneous application was disposed of.

As for the application for condonation of delay, the appellant submitted that the same is attributable to the procedures laid down for government department which envisaged resort to judicial remedies and requiring consultation with Ministry of Law as well as appointment of a government counsel. A detailed chart of the procedure and time taken from the receipt of the impugned order till the filing of this appeal was furnished before the CESTAT.

The AR cited the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of Central Railway, Solapur vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III 2013-TIOL-842-CESTAT-MUM and prayed that the delay may not be condoned.

The Bench observed -

“5. This appeal has been filed by Department of Posts, Government of India. While most departments of the government do end up participating in litigation initiated by private entities, they are not normally geared for litigation with other government departments. It is also not normal for a department to encounter tax litigation so-frequently as to adopt a standard procedure for prosecuting appeals. Without going into the merits of the impugned order or the contention of the appellant, it can be observed that the proceedings were initiated without distinguishing the operational structure of the appellant-department and the scope for any tax evasion. Imposition of penalties on one department by another department, payable and recoverable into the same Consolidated Fund of India, is virtually unheard of. A rectification of this misadventure is possible only through the appellate process. Denial of that recourse on grounds of delay may only serve to increase the number of such cases. Rarity of such litigation justifies the time taken to initiate the appeal proceedings.”

The delay in filing the appeal was condoned and the Registry was directed to list the appeal for hearing in its turn.

(See 2016-TIOL-1150-CESTAT-MUM)