2020 (1) TMI 333

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Original dated 27 February 2017. The Tribunal has not condoned the delay of 452 days in filing the Appeal by rejecting this Application. Hence, the present Appeal. 2. The Appellant has framed the following questions of law for consideration in this Appeal:- "(A) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CESTAT was right in dismissing the application for condonation of delay and in observing that even if the application for condonation of delay was to be allowed, the appeal itself could not have been sustained on merits ? (B) Whether the assessee is liable to pay penalty under Section 114-A of the Customs Act, 1962, of amount equivalent to duty plus interest, as determined by the Committee of Chief Commissio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The Chief Post Master General v/s. Living Media India Ltd. 2012(277) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.) found that the reasons were given by the Appellant - Revenue could not constitute sufficient cause as they were general in nature and rejected the application. While rejecting the application, the Tribunal also observed that the legal issue raised by the Appellant is no longer res-integra. 4. The Tribunal, after concluding that the delay cannot be condoned, commented that even otherwise the case on merits was not in favour of the Appellant as the issue was no longer res-integra. Having concluded that the delay could not be condoned and the application for condonation of delay was to be rejected, the observat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tribunal has used its judicial discretion not to condone the delay. The contention before us is that the discretion used is perverse. The reasons in the application for condonation of delay, which is the case made out by the Appellant before the Tribunal have been reproduced in the impugned order, and we reproduce the same again in this order:- "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 have 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. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... caused to the Respondent if the delay in filing the above Appeal is condoned, and the same is heard and decided on merits. If the delay is condoned, the Department will have an opportunity to pursue the Appeal on merits as the OIO will attain finality by inclusion of the interest alongwith penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The delay is deeply regretted before the Hon'ble Tribunal and it is humbly requested to the Hon'ble Tribunal to kindly condone the delay and examine the matter on merit." 7. Reading of the reasons would show there are no particulars, and an only general statement is made that there were transfers of officers due to annual general transfers and there was heavy workload. It is not as....