TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 463
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before CESTAT Date of Order in original, Appealed Against 27.02.2017 Date of Receipt of Order by Committee of Chief Commissioners 20.04.2017 Date when the order for review, passed under Section 129 D (1) 09.06.2017 Date of Receipt of order for review by Commissioner 23.06.2017 Date of filing the Appeal before CESTAT 18.10.2018 2.1 Seeking condonation of delay of Four Hundred and Fifty Two (452) days in filing the appeal appellant revenue has given following grounds for making such a prayer- "7. Here it is stated that due to heavy workload in the section and many Supreme Court, High Court cases to be attended on priority, the subject case may has escaped the scrutiny of concerned officers. Also, it may be noted that the subject Review order was passed in the month of June '17 during the period there is a transition among the officers due to the Annual General Transfer. There is inflow of new officers in every section and the officers being new to the section might have inadvertently missed the order of the Committee. Therefore, due to this, delay may have occurred in filing of appeal within the prescribed time. 8. During the routine scrutiny and updation of pending lega....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissioner of Customs or Chief Commissioner of Customs or Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs to pass certain orders.- (1) The Committee of Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs or Chief Commissioner of Customs may, of its own motion, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which a Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs] as an adjudicating authority has passed any decision or order under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any such decision or order and may, by order, direct such Commissioner or any other Commissioner to apply to the Appellate Tribunal for the determination of such points arising out of the decision or order as may be specified by the Committee of Principal Chief Commissioners of Customs or Chief Commissioners of Customs in its order. Provided that where the Committee of Principal Chief Commissioners of Customs or Chief Commissioner of Customs differs in its opinion as to the legality or propriety of the decision or order of the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, it shall state the point or points on which it differs and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the present case the delay has occurred in filing the appeal. In interest of justice she requested the application for condonation of delay should be considered sympathetically and allowed. She further argued that issue for consideration in the appeal is whether the penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 should be equivalent to the duty evaded or should be the sum of duty evaded and interest due on such duty evaded. 4.3 Learned Advocate arguing on behalf of respondents submitted that the application in the present case needs to be dismissed as no sufficient cause has been shown explaining the delay in filing the appeal. Further learned counsel submitted that even on merits revenue has no case as the issue has been adjudicated by this tribunal in series of decisions stating that penalty under Section 114A is equivalent to the duty evaded. 5.1 We have considered the ground made for seeking the condonation of delay in the presenting the appeal before Tribunal and also the grounds presented during the arguments. 5.2 The only reason that has been stated by the Appellant in their application is that the delay has occurred on account of the on account of heavy workload in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... mentioned in the affidavit which we have already extracted, clearly show that there was delay at every stage and except mentioning the dates of receipt of the file and the decision taken, there is no explanation as to why such delay had occasioned. Though it was stated by the Department that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and genuine difficulties, the fact remains that from day one the Department or the person/persons concerned have not evinced diligence in prosecuting the matter to this Court by taking appropriate steps. 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....