TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (3) TMI 751
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt to trace out the original documents, since the goods under import are project cargo, the original case file containing the essential documents (viz. the Bill of Entry copies original, duplicate, triplicate) were to be traced from section like EPCG, Group 5A, Refunds, Appeals unit, Review Unit of Custom House, to find out the truth of the contention of the importer." 2. While in the case of MICO Industries Ltd., the Asstt. Commissioner (Review Cell) has sought for condonation of 86 days by stating as follows :- "The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was received in Custom House on 15-3-2001. The appeal ought to have been filed on or before 14-6-2001. The reason for the delay is considerable time has been spent to trace out the original documents and preparation of appeal which is purely administrative in nature and it may be condoned please." 3. The rest of the applications is common wherein they have cited the usual judgments as cited in all similar applications being filed by the Commissioner of Customs every time when there is a delay in filing the appeal. We notice that the Commissioner of Customs has got this stereo type applications to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... DAY DOS (REFUNDS) 21-2-2001 2-4-2001 41 DAYS DOS (RC) 2-4-2001 2-4-2001 1 DAY EO (RC) 2-4-2001 2-4-2001 1 DAY AO (RC) 2-4-2001 3-4-2001 2 DAYS DC (RC) 3-4-2001 3-4-2001 1 DAY AO (RC) 3-4-2001 17-4-2001 15 DAYS DC (RC) 17-4-2001 17-4-2001 1 DAY JC (RC) 17-4-2001 30-5-2001 3 DAYS DOS (RC) 30-5-2001 31-5-2001 2 DAYS AC (RC) 31-5-2001 31-5-2001 1 DAY AC (RC) 31-5-2001 11-6-2001 12 DAYS COMMIR. 11-6-2001 19-6-2001 9 DAYS APPEAL FILED ON 19-6-2001 The maximum delay (*) of 124 days and 41 days occurred in Refund section and not in review cell. (*) For delay of 124 days of Refunds section Dos (Refunds) had explained that back file was mixed with other files and it took time to trace the back file and same was accepted by DC (Refunds). For delay of 41 days Dos (Refunds) had stated that the file was lying with AO (Refunds). 6. The time-chart furnished in the case of MICO Industries Ltd. is also reproduced herein below :- TIME-CHART - FILE NO. DA 24/01 - RE....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom Commissioner after signing; NIL the Appeal papers 4-9-01 4 24 Appeal filed on 6-9-01 2 Total Days 175* O-in-A - Order in Appeal EO - Examining Officer/AO - Apprising Officer DA - Dealing Assistant/OS - Office Superintendent * Delay = 81 days (condonation petition already filed) ** The concerned case file which was sent to Refunds Section for sanctioning Refund could not be traced. *** The Asstt. Commissioner during the material period was holding charges or Audit IAD - CRA, & Legal and due to pressure of work has lost sight of the file which was misplaced in her table. 7. Ld. DR was at pains to explain the delay in both the appeals and made a bold attempt to seek condonation. The contention of ld. DR is that the file has to move from department to department and it is not so easy to clear the file by each section. The Court has to take administrative difficulties faced by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i S.S. Radhakrishnan opposed the prayer on the ground that in both the appeals, there is no affidavit filed by the Commissioner along with condonation applications. The COD application is also not filed by the Commissioner and there is no direction from the Commissioner to the concerned Dy. Commissioner (Review Cell) or the Asstt. Commissioner (Review Cell) to file applications for condonation of delay. The Commissioner had given authority only to file appeal and not condonation application. It is also brought to our notice that the time-charts do not disclose the person who was incharge of the file and why each section had retained the file for a considerable period as can be seen from the time-chart and in view of bald time-chart, the callous manner in which the application has been filed without seriousness, they seek for dismissal of applications. In this regard, ld. Counsel relied on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of UOI v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd., 1988 (38) E.L.T. 739 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court after noting the time-chart had clearly recorded that "there was no whisper to explain what "legal problems in filing the special leave petition arose". It appears t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erein also in a similar application on similar cause with delay was not condoned and appeal was rejected as the delay was more than 3½ months. 10. We have carefully considered the submissions and have perused the applications seeking condonation of delay and the time-chart and the citations referred to before us. Regretfully, we note that the Bench despite granting several opportunities to the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai to file proper affidavit and give sufficient reasons has not availed of the same and has not responded to the Bench direction on several letters addressed by DR in the matter. Ld. DR has relied on the time-chart which is not signed by the Commissioner to file the appeal wherein there is no affidavit of Commissioner of Customs, Chennai supporting the COD application. We observe that similar type of COD applications have not been accepted. These type of applications are not supported by any cause for condoning the delay despite the Bench pointed out this to the Commissioner. Several COD applications which have not been accepted the Commissioner has not woken up from the slumber to take steps to file the appeal in time. We are now required to see a....