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>Dismissal of Delay Condonation Application for Customs Appeal due to Negligence</h1> <h3>The Commissioner of Customs (General) Versus Nandan Shipping Agency</h3> The Commissioner of Customs (General) Versus Nandan Shipping Agency - TMI Issues: Condonation of delay in filing an appeal from the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.Detailed Analysis:1. Delay in Filing Appeal: The application sought condonation of a 484-day delay in filing an appeal from the order dated 18th April, 2017, passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The applicant filed an additional affidavit explaining the delay, stating that the order was received on 22nd May, 2017, and various actions were taken by the Revenue leading to the delayed filing of the appeal.2. Merits of the Appeal: The applicant's counsel argued that the issue in the appeal stands concluded in favor of the applicant based on previous court decisions. Specifically, reliance was placed on the decisions of the Court in Principal Commissioner of Customs Vs. Unison Clearing Pvt. Ltd. and Commissioner of Customs Vs. Fugro Survey (Middle East) Ltd. to support the applicant's case.3. Negligence of the Revenue: The Court noted that there was a significant delay from the time the Principal Commissioner of Customs sought information on the appeal until the file was put up for appeal, indicating negligence on the part of the Revenue in challenging the Tribunal's order in a timely manner. The Court highlighted the lack of action taken by the Revenue during this period as a sign of negligence.4. Basis for Condoning Delay: The Court found that the reliance placed on previous court decisions by the Revenue was not sufficient to condone the long delay in filing the appeal. The Court emphasized that the appeal seemed to have been filed only after a particular court decision, which was not a valid basis for condonation of such a lengthy delay.5. Comparison with Previous Cases: The Court compared the present case with a previous decision where a longer delay was condoned due to specific circumstances, highlighting that the facts in the present case were different. The Court concluded that there was no sufficient cause made out for condoning the delay and subsequently dismissed the Notice of Motion seeking condonation of delay.In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal from the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, citing negligence on the part of the Revenue and insufficient grounds for condoning the delay.
TaxTMI 