1986 (10) TMI 202 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Denies Delay Condonation for Govt. Appeals, Dismisses Countervailing Duty Cases

The Tribunal rejected the applications for condonation of delay due to insufficient cause and informal preparation. Consequently, the appeals, filed after ... Appeal - Condonation of delay Issues Involved:1. Condonation of Delay (COD) in filing appeals.2. Merits of the appeals concerning countervailing duty on components of IC diesel engines.Detailed Analysis:1. Condonation of Delay (COD):The appeals were filed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, under Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, against a consolidated order-in-appeal passed on 30-3-1985. The appeals were presented before the West Regional Bench on 27-5-1986 and received by the Tribunal on 31-7-1986, accompanied by applications for condonation of delay. The applications lacked dates, affidavits, or proper verification.The Tribunal observed that the application for COD mentioned a 'cut off' date of 4-7-1985, but provided no explanation for the delay after this date. The Departmental Representative requested additional time to file a time-chart, citing a judgment of the Kerala High Court to argue for leniency in condonation applications by the Government.The respondents opposed the COD applications, pointing out that a similar application had been dismissed by the West Regional Bench, Bombay. They relied on a Tribunal judgment in the case of C.C.E., New Delhi v. M/s National Chemicals Industries Ltd., New Delhi, which held that Government Departments should not be treated differently from individual suitors regarding delay condonation.The Tribunal noted that despite the adjournment granted, the time-chart was not filed. The Departmental Representative explained that the absence of case records made it impossible to prepare the time-chart or affidavit. The Tribunal declined further adjournment due to the lack of a specific request from the appellant Collector and proceeded to hear the applications on merits.The Departmental Representative argued that Government Departments should be granted indulgence in delay condonation due to the nature of their operations, citing a Bombay High Court judgment. However, the respondents countered that no case had been made out for condonation, and the Tribunal had consistently held that countervailing duty was not chargeable on the components in question.The Tribunal considered the plea for COD but found the application to be drawn up casually, lacking cogent and convincing reasons. The procedure described in the application was contrary to Section 129A(2) of the Act, which requires the Collector of Customs to decide on filing an appeal. The Tribunal noted that the application did not provide details of the delay or reasons for it.The Tribunal referred to Supreme Court and Kerala High Court judgments, which emphasized that the law of limitation applies equally to Government Departments and private individuals. The Tribunal found no basis for condoning the delay, as no time-chart or supporting affidavit was furnished despite time being given.The Tribunal concluded that no sufficient cause for the delay had been established and rejected the applications for condonation of delay in all cases.2. Merits of the Appeals:On the merits, the respondents argued that the Tribunal had consistently held that countervailing duty under TI 34A of the CET was not chargeable on components of IC diesel engines imported by the respondents. They provided a copy of a recent Tribunal judgment, which referenced earlier orders supporting their position.The Tribunal noted that the West Regional Bench, Bombay, had rejected a similar application for COD and the appeals themselves in a related case. The Tribunal found no new reasons or evidence to justify a different outcome in the present case.Given the rejection of the COD applications, the Tribunal did not entertain the appeals on merits and rejected them accordingly.Conclusion:The Tribunal rejected the applications for condonation of delay due to the lack of sufficient cause and the casual manner in which the applications were prepared. Consequently, the appeals, filed after the statutory period of limitation, were also rejected.