Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee, Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.
Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Kolkata - Appellants
Vs.
S K Samanta and Co Pvt Ltd. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No of 2021 (D No 20008 of 2020) WITH Civil Appeal No of 2021 (D No 19601 of 2020) Civil Appeal No of 2021 (D No 20017 of 2020)
Decided On : 28-11-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal timeline development. (Para 1) |
| 2. delay not justified; appeals should be timely. (Para 3) |
| 3. appeals dismissed due to delay. (Para 4 , 5) |
ORDER :
1. These appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the decisions of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 19 September 2018, 17 July 2018 and 19 September 2018 with a delay of 668 days, 727 days and 668 days, respectively.
2 We have heard Mr Sanjay Jain and Mr Balbir Singh, learned Additional Solicitors General, in support of the appeals. It has been submitted that the delay occurred on account of the fact that the appeals were mistakenly filed before the Calcutta High Court.
3. Even if the period of time which was spent in pursuing the appeals before the High Court is excluded, there is still a substantial and unexplained delay. Even otherwise, we are of the view that the Union of India, which has competent legal advice at its command, cannot, particularly in the facts of the present case, be heard to contend that they were under a mis-apprehension that the appeals would lie before the High Court. The nature of the controversy involved in the appeals leaves no manner of doubt, that the appeals were maintainable before this Court and this Court alone. Hence, we are not inclined to condone such a gross delay on the part of the Revenue in accessing its remedies before the court. In a matter such as the present, certainty in fiscal matters is of importance to the assessee just as the interests of the Revenue have to be duly protected. The concerns of the Revenue have to be duly met by showing alacrity in pursuing remedies which are available in law.
4. Since the appeals are not being entertained on the ground of delay, we expressly clarify that we have not enquired into the issues of law which have been addressed in the present appeals.
5. The appeals are accordingly dismissed on the ground of delay.
AI
The court's decision was based on the absence of a question of law and the pending validity of rule 8(3a) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 before the Supreme Court.
Substantial delay in appeals requires cogent explanation; unexplained post-judgment delay cannot be casually condoned.
The court's decision emphasized the discretion of the court in condoning delay, based on the sufficiency of the explanation provided.
Unsatisfactory reasons for delay can lead to dismissal of appeals.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
