By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JAN 13, 2017: THE CCE, Pune-III had challenged the order of the CESTAT dated 18.04.2013 by lodging an appeal, albeit belatedly, in the High Court Registry on 02.04.2014.

The Registry granted sufficient time to the Revenue to remove the office objections and get the appeal registered but no steps were taken for complying with all the procedural formalities and removing the objections.

Therefore, by a conditional order, the appeal was dismissed for want of removal of office objections.

Later, the High Court, granting enough latitude, condoned the delay in filing the appeal, but the office objections were not complied.

Finally, the appeal was dismissed for non-removal of office objections on 20th April 2016.

No steps were taken to have that order set aside and promptly.

Now, a Notice of Motion has been moved to set aside a conditional order of the Prothonotary & Senior Master.

The affidavit-in-support mentions that the Registry dismissed this appeal for want of compliance with procedural formalities.

The High Court observed -

+ Waking up after more than two and half years after such a dismissal and seeking restoration of the appeal would not be fair and proper. It is clear that there is no cause shown, much less some change in the panel of advocates. No details are provided and a vague statement is made in the affidavit-in-support.

+ It is noticed on several occasions by this Court that the advocates employ registered clerks who keep track of such matters and which remain pending in the Registry for compliance with the procedural rules.

+ The Revenue / Department has not learnt its lessons and though being the largest litigant, has not engaged the services of court clerks, much less registered court clerks. Therefore, those advocates who are engaged by the Revenue on more occasions than one have not been informed about lack of the procedural compliances.

+ The advocates who are panel advocates also do not have their own paraphernalia including clerks. We do not think that the High Court should condone such lapses and utter negligence on the part of the Revenue officials and their advocates.

Holding that the delay of 776 days remains unexplained and the cause shown is not bona fide and reasonable, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

As a result, the Notice of Motion is also dismissed.

(See 2017-TIOL-84-HC-MUM-CX)