Cross-objection maintainability requires independent relief; a filing that only supports the impugned order is infructuous.

A Revenue cross-objection that merely sought affirmation of the Commissioner's order, without raising any independent challenge or claiming substantive relief, was treated as an improper use of the cross-objection mechanism and held infructuous. Because the filing was not maintainable in the form presented, the accompanying request for condonation of delay also could not survive and was dismissed. The text emphasises that a cross-objection must serve an independent procedural purpose rather than simply reiterate support for the impugned order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue's cross-objection seeking affirmation of the Commissioner's order was maintainable, and whether the application for condonation of delay in filing it deserved acceptance.

Analysis: The order challenged by the assessee had already confirmed duty, penalty, and interest in favour of the Revenue. The Revenue's cross-objection did not raise an independent challenge or seek any substantive relief; it merely reiterated support for the impugned order. Such a filing was held to reflect a mistaken understanding of the purpose of a cross-objection and to be infructuous. As the cross-objection itself was not maintainable in the manner presented, the accompanying request for condonation of delay also could not survive.

Conclusion: The cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous and the application for condonation of delay was also dismissed.

---