By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, MARCH 11, 2017: THE appellant Export Inspection Agency is a body of the Central Government which is entrusted with the statutory responsibility to carry out pre-export inspection for ensuring that goods supplied to the world market conform to prescribed quality.

Against them, a Service Tax demand of Rs.15.09 crores has been confirmed by the CST, Mumbai-V.

The appellant is before the CESTAT with an application for condonation of delay of 111 days.

It is submitted that the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated period of three months owing to internal procedures that had to be complied with before filing the appeal; that the delay was caused by non-availability of legal expertise within the organization and securing of external experts was to be preceded by the prescribed procedure; that it is only after the duly appointed advocate rendered the advice to prefer an appeal that pre-deposit amount already sanctioned could be drawn for payment and that for a substantial period of time Export Inspection Council remained without a Chairman.

The Bench observed -

"6. We have perused the time-lines furnished in the affidavit filed by the applicant. The Mumbai office of the applicant received the impugned order and, without delay, submitted it to the appropriate authority within the hierarchy seeking approval to litigate the impugned order. It is seen that between 23 rd May 2016 and 18th July 2016, the Export Inspection Council, the empowered body, was without a Chairman and that without the approval of Chairman funds for pre-deposits, a mandatory requirement for filing of appeals, could not be released. It is only on the 18th July 2016 that the sanction for the amount to be paid as pre-deposit was accorded and it took another two months thereafter for selection and appointment of a legal advisor to be completed. Thereafter the advice of the counsel had to be obtained for payment of pre-deposit on 24th October 2016 and for the appeal to be filed on 9th November 2016."

Noting that the rigour of procedure stood in the way of prompt filing of appeal, the Bench accepted the reasons ascribed and condoned the delay.

The Registry was directed to list the appeal for disposal in its turn.

(See 2017-TIOL-783-CESTAT-MUM)