TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal emphasizes adherence to timelines, dismisses appeal citing delay and penalty limits</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Customs (Import-I), Mumbai Versus Aban Offshore Ltd.</h3> Commissioner of Customs (Import-I), Mumbai Versus Aban Offshore Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.2. Legality of penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.Detailed Analysis:1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:The Revenue filed an appeal against the Order in Original No 15/RT/PC/2016-17 dated 27.02.2017, with a significant delay of 452 days. The appellant sought condonation of this delay, citing reasons such as heavy workload, priority cases, officer transitions due to the Annual General Transfer, and inadvertent oversight. The appellant argued that the delay was unintentional and requested the Tribunal to condone it to examine the matter on merit.The Tribunal noted that the statutory period for filing the appeal is one month from the date of receipt of the review order by the Commissioner, as per Section 129D(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal should have been filed by 22.07.2017, but it was presented on 18.10.2018. The Tribunal emphasized that heavy workload and officer transfers cannot justify such a substantial delay. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in 'Chief Post Master General & Others vs Living Media India Ltd. & Anr,' which held that government departments must show reasonable and acceptable explanations for delays and perform their duties with diligence.The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue failed to show sufficient cause for the delay in presenting the appeal and dismissed the application for condonation of delay.2. Legality of Penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962:The Revenue contended that the penalty under Section 114A should include both the duty evaded and the interest due on such duty. However, the respondent argued that the penalty should only be equivalent to the duty evaded, as adjudicated by the Tribunal in several decisions.The Tribunal observed that even if the application for condonation of delay was allowed, the appeal would not have been sustained on merits. The issue raised by the Revenue was already settled against them in a series of decisions, including:- Bharti Airtel [2012 (286) ELT 270 (T)];- Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd [2014 (313) E.L.T. 353 (T)];- B. Suresh Vasudev Baliga [2015 (329) ELT 433 (T-Bang)].Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on both procedural and substantive grounds, concluding that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue by dismissing the application for condonation of delay.Conclusion:The applications for condonation of delay filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and consequently, the appeals were also dismissed. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the necessity for government departments to provide sufficient cause for any delays in legal proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
