Court allows revival of tax appeals due to acceptable delay reasons, significant revenue, and genuine justifications.

The Commissioner Of Central Excise And Customs Versus Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd

The Commissioner Of Central Excise And Customs Versus Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd - 2016 (344) E.L.T. 818 (Guj.) Issues Involved:
1. Revival of Tax Appeals No.1455 of 2007 and No.1 of 2010.
2. Requirement and subsequent non-requirement of Committee on Disputes (COD) clearance.
3. Delay in filing the revival applications.
4. Justification for condonation of delay.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Revival of Tax Appeals No.1455 of 2007 and No.1 of 2010:
The applicant, Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat-II, filed applications for the revival of Tax Appeals No.1455 of 2007 and No.1 of 2010. These appeals were initially dismissed by the High Court on 30.09.2010 due to the absence of COD clearance, with liberty to apply for revival once such clearance was obtained.

2. Requirement and Subsequent Non-requirement of Committee on Disputes (COD) Clearance:
Initially, the Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Collector of Central Excise mandated COD clearance for pursuing litigation. However, this requirement was recalled by the Supreme Court in Electronics Corporation of India Limited v. Union of India and others, making COD clearance unnecessary. Consequently, the applicant sought to revive the appeals as COD clearance was no longer required.

3. Delay in Filing the Revival Applications:
The revival applications were filed in July 2015, over four years after the Supreme Court's decision in Electronics Corporation of India Limited. The respondent contended that the applicant was negligent, as the Central Board of Excise and Customs had issued a circular on 24.03.2011 informing that COD clearance was no longer required, yet no steps were taken for revival until much later.

4. Justification for Condonation of Delay:
The applicant justified the delay by citing frequent transfers and changes in officers, restructuring of the department, and the bona fide belief that communication from COD would be received. The applicant also argued that the revival of the appeals was crucial due to the significant public revenue involved. The court found the reasons plausible and acceptable, emphasizing that the delay was not due to procedural red-tape but genuine administrative challenges.

Conclusion:
The court condoned the delay, noting that the appeals were dismissed with liberty to apply for revival once COD clearance was obtained, which was no longer necessary. The court emphasized the substantial public revenue involved and accepted the applicant's explanation for the delay. Consequently, the applications were allowed, and Tax Appeals No.1455 of 2007 and No.1 of 2010 were restored to file.