1. Challenge to CESTAT order — Delay in sending proposal to Ministry of Finance. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 1133
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.
Pr. Commissioner Central Excise Delhi I – Appellant
Versus
Design Dialogues India Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal Diary No(s). 14338 of 2020, Diary No(s). 13084 of 2020 (XVII-A)
Decided on : 29-06-2021
Important Points
Timely action, inquiry, and responsibility fixing are crucial in cases of revenue delay.
Subject
Revenue Law - Recovery and Enforcement
Headnote
CESTAT - Delay in Recovery of Revenue - The court expressed concern over the delay in taking action against officers responsible for the delay in recovery of revenue, highlighting the need for inquiry, responsibility fixing, and timely action.
Fact of the Case:
The impugned order was passed by the CESTAT, and the applicant's proposal to the Ministry of Finance was sent after six months. The petitioner raised concerns about pending similar matters and the substantial amount at stake.
Finding of the Court:
The court expressed dissatisfaction with the delay in taking action against the officers responsible for the revenue delay, noting the significant time taken for the special leave petition and the requested additional time for completing the action.
Issues: Delay in recovery of revenue, pending similar matters, and the need for action against responsible officers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of timely action, inquiry, and responsibility fixing in cases of revenue delay, expressing concern over the prolonged process and the need for expeditious resolution.
Final Decision: The case was listed for further proceedings on 03-09-2021.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. N. Venkataraman, Mr. S.K. Singhania, Mr. V.V.V. Patabhai Ram, Adv., Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv., Mr. M.K. Maroria, AOR
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. N. Venkataraman, Mr. S.K. Singhania, Mr. V.V.V. Patabhai Ram, Adv., Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv., Mr. M.K. Maroria, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Pending similar matters in other appeals — Submission that revenue loss should be recovered from the concerned officer. (Para 2 )
ORDER :
1. The impugned order was passed by the CESTAT on 20-05-2019 and the proposal is stated to have been sent by the applicant to the Ministry of Finance on 06-01-2020, after six months.
2. The plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that similar matters are pending in Civil Appeal No.6550/2015 and other connected matters.
tioner submits that more than Rs. 5 Crores is at stake. If that be, the authorities should recover it from the officer concerned.
5. Before we proceed with the application further, we would like to know the steps which have been taken by the appellant against the officers concerned!
6. If it has not been done, then an inquiry must be held, responsibility fixed and the action taken against the officers be placed before us.
7. The learned Additional Solicitor General requests for three months’ time to complete the process.
8. We may only note that it has taken a year’s delay apart from the 90 days period to file the special leave petition and now three months further are required to complete action against the officers concerned. So much for the anxiety about the revenue!
9. List on 03-09-2021.
