TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 109
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bench had decided 29 Tax appeals including the ones out of which the present applications arise. Those 29 Tax Appeals can be divided into two classes, namely, (i) the appeals wherein the quantum of monetary threshold limit is more than Rs. 25 lakh and (ii) the appeals wherein such limit is below Rs. 25 lakh. 3.2 The applicant proposed to file Special Leave Applications in the Supreme Court of India against the common order passed by this Court in nine Tax Appeals including Tax appeal No.1116 of 2011 filed by M/s. Adarsh Textile Mills. However, the applicant could not propose to file SLP in the Supreme Court in respect of other group because the quantum of revenue involved therein was below Rs. 25 lakh. 3.3 According to the applicant, over the subject matters involved in these applications, the Central Board of Excise and Customs was requested to permit the applicant to file SLP even in those appeals wherein the quantum of revenue involved was below the prescribed monetary limit fixed in the instructions letter dated 17th October 2011 and that the applicant pursued the said request by representing on various dates including on 6th May 2013, 26th June 2013, 12th July 2013 and 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ircumstances, events and happenings which compelled the Additional Solicitor General to withdraw the SLP seeking review of the judgment of this Court. 3.7 The Director of Legal Affairs, New Delhi gave reply to the said reference, which was received by the applicant on 3rd December 2013. The applicant, after following the required procedure including that of obtaining approval of the Chief Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara, has decided to apply for review of order dated 26th December 2012 passed in Tax Appeal No.525 of 2012 in the case of Vitrag Silk Mills (P.) Ltd. (supra). 3.8 According to the applicant, Tax Appeal No.525 of 2012 is disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by placing sole reliance on the CAV common judgment dated 28th September 2012 in Tax Appeal No.1153 of 2011 and connected appeals. The applicant obtained legal opinion from the Central Government Counsel on the feasibility of filing the present review applications before this Court and considering the opinion, it has decided to file the present Misc. Civil Applications for review. 3.9 The applicants submit that consequently, the papers were forwarded and relevant formalities were t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the aforesaid materials on record, we find substance in the contention of Mr Parikh, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent that in all these matters, as law has prohibited filing of Special Leave Application against the order sought to be reviewed at the instance of the Revenue because of the amount of tax effect fixed by law, the applicants were entitled to take into consideration from the very day of delivery of the order as to whether they would file any application for review. Thus, according to Mr Parikh, there was no justification of waiting for the fate of other appeals where valuation was more than Rs. 25 lakh. 6. Although Mr Oza, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant tried to convince us that a coordinate Bench of this Court having already condoned the delay in preferring similar application for review and, after condoning delay, having adjourned the matter sine die till the disposal of the Special Leave Application, we should also follow the same procedure, we are not impressed by such submission. It appears that a coordinate Division Bench has adopted t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reported in AIR 2012 SC 1506 where the Supreme Court made the following observations in the context of the delay of 427 days by a Government in preferring appeal before the Supreme Court: "12. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited ....