Timeliness in filing appeals must be adhered to; negligence does not justify delay.

1. The impugned order was passed by the CESTAT on 20-5-2019, (Secure Mobile (India) v. CCE, 2019 SCC OnLine CESTAT 9223), and the proposal is stated to have been sent by the applicant to the Ministry of Finance on 6-1-2020, after six months. The plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that similar matters are pending in Civil Appeal No. 6550 of 2015 and other connected matters.

2. Merely because similar matters are pending is not a ground to grant leave and take the matter when the authorities have been negligent in filing the appeal. We have repeatedly emphasised that unless the case is brought within the parameters of Postmaster General v. Living Media (India) Ltd., 2012 (3) SCC 563 : 2012 (2) SCC (Civ) 327 : 2012 (2) SCC (Cri) 580 : 2012 (1) SCC (L&S) 649, we would not be inclined to condone the delay and have in fact dismissed the special leave petitions with costs categorising them as “certificate cases” only brought before the Court to complete a formality and save the skin of the officers concerned.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that more than Rs 5 crores is at stake. If that be, the authorities should recover it from the officer concerned.

4. 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! 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.

5. The learned Additional Solicitor General requests for three months' time to complete the process. 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!

6. List on 3-9-2021.
Court Masters.