TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1575
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2007 [the Valuation Rules] should be accepted as the transaction value. This finding was recorded by the Deputy Commissioner after holding that though the importer (the respondent) and the foreign supplier were related persons in terms of rule 2(2) of the Valuation Rules, but the relationship had not influenced the value of the goods. It was further specified by the Deputy Commissioner in the said order that it will be valid for the period of three years from the date issue. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), after noticing that mere suspicion or doubt cannot be a ground to reject the transaction value, found no merit in the appeal filed by the Department and accordingly, rejected it. 2. This appeal was filed with an application for condoning the delay of four years and nineteen days in filing the appeal. However, pursuant to the order dated August 23, 2022 passed by the Tribunal giving liberty to the department to file a better application for explaining the delay in filing the appeal, the present application was filed on September 19, 2022. 3. The relevant paragraphs of the delay condonation application are reproduced below: "1. That as directed by the Competen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or SVB section. As the above letter dated 8-5-2018 was not marked to AC/DC SVB, hence the same was not received by AC/DC SVB or in the SVB Unit. 4 (ii). The review Cell, Commissionerate (General) has communicated to SVB Cell vide their letter 9-9-2022 (Copy enclosed) that they were pursuing the matter with the registry of Hon'ble CESTAT and they have also forwarded copy of letters dated 7-12-2020 and 14-9-2021 vide their F. No. VIII(HQ)10/Gen./110/2017 (Copy enclosed) written by them to the registry of Hon'ble CESTAT for the present status of the Appeal, however no reply was received. 4 (iii). Copies of both the letters dated 7-12-2020 and 14-9-2021 vide F. No. VIII(HQ)10/Gen./110/2017 were also forwarded to Assistant Commissioner (AR) O/o Chief Commissionerate (AR) CESTAT for further necessary action, but no reply/information was received so far. 4 (iv). Further, a letter dated 17-6-2021 from the respondent M/s Bergen Engines India Pvt. Ltd. (Copy enclosed) was also received in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Delhi Zone, which was further marked to review Cell. In this regard, the importer was replied by the review cell vide thei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r dated 8-5-2018 were appropriately addressed to the Appellant and were having correct address which cannot be disputed. The Appellant were provided with a time period of almost 4 months to rectify the minor defects which they have conveniently ignored. Hence, the documents were returned by the Registry of Hon'ble CESTAT." 6. The letter dated May 08, 2018 sent by the Registry of the Tribunal to the Department was enclosed with the reply and it is reproduced below: "To, Commissioner of Customs Customs Commissionerate (General) New Customs House, Near IGI Airport, New Delhi- 110035 Sub: Returning appeal papers in the matter of CC, New Delhi Vs M/s Bergen Engines India Pvt Ltd -regd. Sir, The above referred appeal papers were filed on 18/01/2018 under defects have not been removed till date. In view of the above facts and under direction of competent authority, the appeal papers are hereby returned to appellant. (Sunil Kumar) Technical Officer. Encls: Appeal papers." 7. The receipt of this letter dated May 08, 2018 on May 18, 2018 has been admitted by the Department in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ormed that some defects had been raised in the appeal filed by the Registry of the Tribunal and appeal papers had been also been returned in the year 2018. 12. This paragraph is vague for it does not even state as to who informed the Special Valuation Branch, Delhi that some defects had been pointed out by the Registry of the Tribunal and the appeal papers had been returned and how that person came to know this fact. 13. Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned authorized representative for the Department strenuously urged that there has been no intentional delay in filing the appeal because as soon as the Department came to know on January 08, 2022 that the earlier appeal filed on May 08, 2018 had been returned to the Department, a fresh appeal was filed before the Tribunal on February 10, 2022. 14. As noticed above, the appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi and it is the office of the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi that had received the letter dated May 08, 2018 sent by the Registry of the Tribunal enclosing the appeal papers since the defects had not been removed by the Department despite three notices having been sent by the Tribunal. 15. In paragraph 4 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the appeal, was to have filed an appeal rather than seeking information about the status of an appeal that had been returned back to the Department because of defects. 19. Learned authorized representative appearing for the Department has placed reliance upon various decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court to contend that some latitude should be shown to the Department in delay condonation matter. 20. What has to be seen in each case is whether a satisfactory explanation for the delay has been provided. In the present case, it has been seen as a fact that as far back as on May 18, 2018, the department was aware that the appeal filed by the department had been returned because of defects and even the letter dated December 07, 2020 sent by the Department to the Tribunal also takes note of the fact that the Department had also been verbally informed that the appeal papers had been returned. Yet the Department sent letters dated November 23, 2020 and September 14, 2021 to the Tribunal seeking status of the appeal which had already been returned back to the Department. This only reflects the casual attitude adopted by the Department, more particularly when the time li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rders of this Court which came at a time when technology had not advanced and thus, greater indulgence was shown. This position is no more prevalent and the current legal position has been elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563 = 2012 (277) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.). Despite this, there seems to be a little change in the approach of the Government and public authorities." (emphasis supplied) 22. In Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. 2012 (277) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.)/[2012] 20 taxmann.com 347 (SC)/[2012] 207 Taxman 163 (SC) the Supreme Court also observed as follows: " We have already extracted the reasons as mentioned in the "better affidavit" sworn by Mr. Aparajeet Pattanayak, SSRM, Air Mail Sorting Division, New Delhi. It is relevant to note that in the said affidavit, the Department has itself mentioned and is aware of the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in LPA Nos. 418 and 1006 of 2007 as 11-9-2009. Even according to the deponent, their counsel had applied for the certified copy of the said judgment only on 8-1-201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay." (emphasis supplied) 23. The inevitable conclusion that flows from the aforesaid facts is that the Department was highly negligent in filing the appeal on February 10, 20....