2014 (5) TMI 599

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... application for condonation of delay in both these cases is seeking to condone the delay of approximately six years in filing the appeal. 3. On perusal of the records, it is noticed that the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla vide OIO No.KDL/COMMR/13/De-novo/2008, dt. 31.03.2008 had dropped the proceedings initiated vide show cause notice dt. 12.10.1999 by the DRI, against three noticees. 4. Revenue filed the appeal against one of the respondent M/s. National Impex Corporation before the Tribunal. These applications are filed for condoning delay in filing the appeals against other two respondents. 5. Ld. Departmental Representative while justifying the delay in filing the appeal, submits that these two appeals have to be considered a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nst same order, as the Commissioner is the only aggrieved person. It is his submission that this has been settled by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Daman Vs. Shree Sainath Fabrics Inds. Ltd. - 2003 (158) ELT 218 (Tri. - Del.). 6. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent on the other hand would draw our attention to the application filed for condonation of delay and submit that the revenue has not given any sufficient cause for condoning the delay. He would submit that the Tribunal in the case of the S. Benjamin Vs. CCE, Chennai - 2013 (295) ELT 91 (Tri. - Chennai) has categorically recorded that sufficient cause needs to be ascertained from the facts on record. It is also his submission that in the case of CCE, Chennai-IV Vs. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y of filing the Appeal under Section 129 D (4) of the Customs Act, 1962 considering the following ground and circumstances. An appeal bearing no. C/310/2008 was filed by department against the OIO No. KDL/COMMR/13/Denovo/2008 dated 28.03.2008 for not imposing RF on the goods cleared, not imposing penalty on M/s. Adani Exports Ltd. and Shri Gautam Adani, Chairman of M/s. Adani Exports Ltd. However through oversight only one appeal had been filed against M/s. National Impex Corporation and other two respondent viz. M/s. Adani Exports Ltd. and Shri Gautam Adani, Chairman of M/s. Adani Exports Ltd. separate appeal were not filed. Hence, the separate appeal memo in respect of Shri Gautam Adani, Chairman of M/s. Adani Exports Ltd. is hereby fi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the various decisions of the Apex Court, High Courts and the Tribunal that the Tribunal has power to condone the delay of any number of days, provided sufficient cause is shown. As has been held in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General Vs. Living Media India Ltd. - 2012 (277) ELT 289 (SC), if the appellant is Government or a wing of the Government is a party it itself cannot be reason for condoning the unjustified delay, even though a liberal approach and concession has to be adopted in condoning the delay in appeals filed by the Government. The ratio laid down by their Lordships in Living Media India Ltd. will apply in the case in hand on all square as it can be seen that the application for condonation of delay (which is rep....