By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, OCT 27, 2016: AGGRIEVED by the order dated 8th April 2015 passed by the Commissioner(A), the Committee of Commissioners vide its review order dated 13th August 2015 authorised the Deputy Commissioner to file an appeal before the CESTAT. The appeal was filed on 9th October 2015. Along with said appeals, applications for condonation of delay has also been filed.

In the matter of the applications filed for condonation of delay, the CESTAT remarked -

As for the affidavit contents, the Bench made some scathing observations.

The CESTAT observed -

++ It would appear that the Committee of Commissioners left it to the lower authorities to ascertain and prepare the grounds for appeal against the impugned order; there was otherwise no need to seek the view of the assessing group.

++ This, we are afraid, does not constitute application of mind expected of officers occupying senior position in the tax hierarchy. The devolution of such authority within the statute annexes the obligation to discharge that function with due diligence and comprehension of the issue that is sought to be appealed against. Mere accordance of approval to appeal because the impugned order is not in favour of Revenue is not proper discharge of duties statutorily assigned.

++ We also take note that the competent Committee of Commissioners did not appear to have had knowledge of the delay. The exercise of jurisdiction to review is to be taken up with full cognizance of the circumstances connected with the appeal. Lack thereof, including that of delay, vitiates the review proceedings as the competent committee has not been enabled to apply its mind to the issue.

In fine, the applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal were dismissed and consequently the appeals too met the same fate.

(See 2016-TIOL-2791-CESTAT-MUM)