Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Poonam A. Bamba, JJ.
Principal Commissioner, GST, Delhi South - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Indraprasth Gas Limited - Respondent
SERTA No. 5 of 2021, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 43924 of 2021
Decided On : 30-03-2022
Delay Condonation - Customs Excise and Services Tax - CENVaT Credit Rules, 2004 - Rule 6(3)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the order of the Customs Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal. The delay involved was 1310 days. The appellant claimed lack of knowledge about the status of the order due to changes in the jurisdiction and delay in receiving the certified copy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant's reasons for delay unacceptable, citing the availability of orders on the Tribunal's website and the appellant's failure to seek information about the status of the appeal. The court referred to the Supreme Court's observations on condonation of delay due to government inefficiencies.
Issues: Delay condonation, lack of knowledge about the status of the order, change in jurisdiction, and reasons for delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's reasons for delay were not tenable in law and refused to condone the delay of 1310 days.
Final Decision: The application for delay condonation was dismissed, and the appeal was closed.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. - CM aPPLs. 43925-26/2021
1. allowed, subject to just exceptions.
CM aPPL. 43927/2021
2. This is an application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the accompanying appeal.
3. The period of delay involved, according to the appellant, is 1310 days.
4. Via the accompanying appeal, the appellant seeks to assail the order dated 14.11.2017, passed by the Customs Excise and Services Tax appellate Tribunal [in short 'the Tribunal'].
4.1. The Tribunal, via the impugned order, has sustained the order passed by the adjudicating authority.
4.2. Therefore, in effect, the respondent has succeeded in two forums.
4.3. We may note that the issue which was raised before the Tribunal involved the interpretation of the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the CENVaT Credit Rules, 2004
5. as is evident from above, the appeal has been preferred after more than four years, since the impugned order has been passed.
5.1. The reasons given in the above-captioned application for condonation of delay are as follows :
'2. That the office of the appellant came to know about the status of CESTaT Final Order No.57931/2017 dated 14.11.2017 only on 06.07.2021 after a letter dated 28.06.2021 was received in its office from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner-Review, GST-Gurugram, asking about the status of CESTaT Final Order No.57931/2017 dated 14.11.2017 in the case of M/s Indraprastha Gas Limited Vs CCE, Delhi-II as the similar issue was involved in respect of Mis Suzuki Motorcycles India Private Limited falling under the jurisdiction CGST Gurugram Commissionerate.
3. That, immediately, a letter dated 08.07.2021 was written to the concerned Division, Naraina for providing the desired documents pertaining to the case file and also the staff was deputed to locate the case file. also, a letter dated 30.07.2021 and subsequent reminder dated 03.08.2021 were sent to the Hon'ble CESTaT, office for providing certified copy of the said CESTaT Final Order No. 57931/2017 dated 14.11.2017.
4. That as per available records it was noticed that no such order is received in this office from the office of the Hon'ble CESTaT, Delhi. Therefore, certified true copy of the said order was obtained from the Registrar, CESTaT, New Delhi by hand only on 04.08.2021.
5. That for proper appreciation and adjudication of the present application, it is pertinent to bring to the kind notice of this Hon'ble Court that on GST regime coming into existence with effect from 01.07.2017, in terms of Notification No. 2/2017- Central Tax dated 19.06.2017 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central board of Excise and Customs, vide F.no.349/52/2017- GST, the areas falling under the jurisdiction of Principal Chief Commissioner, Central Tax, Delhi has been organized into Central Tax Commissionerates, namely East, North, West, and South, two Central Tax audit Commissionerates and two Central Tax appeals Commissionerates and two central tax ( audit Commissionerates) in the union capital territory of Delhi.
6. That, regarding non-receipt of certified and true copy of the impugned CESTaT order in the office of applicant during the period in question i.e. November-2017, it is submitted that GST regime came into existence w.e.f. 1.7.2017. In the instant case, the appellant was Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-II and when the judgment in this case was pronounced on 14.11.2017, the office of Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-II was no more in existence.
7. Thus, it appears that the certified copy of the said order was delivered at some address of newly created GST regime, but it might have not reached to the proper office due to miscommunication and confusion existing at that time due to sudden change of regime. However, to know about the status of delivery of the CESTaT Final Order, this office has written a letter dated 24.11.2021 to the Registrar, CESTaT, New Delhi to know about the timeline of dispatch of CESTaT Final Order No
AI
Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit. Government departments are under a special obligation to ensure diligence and commitment in performing their dut....
Government entities must provide reasonable explanations for delays; the law of limitation applies equally to them.
Government departments are under a special obligation to ensure diligence and commitment in filing appeals, and condonation of delay should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government depart....
Service of an order on an authorized representative who appeared during adjudication proceedings is valid under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, and the appellate authority has no jurisdiction ....
Justification for delay in filing an appeal under the Customs Act, 1962 must be reasonable and valid.
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
