The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Versus M/s. Twenty First Century Wire Rods Ltd.
Central Excise
2018 (10) TMI 1551 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT – TMI
BOMBAY HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 25-10-2018
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 670 OF 2018 IN CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L) NO. 140 OF 2016
Central Excise
M.S. SANKLECHA & RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly, a/w Mr. J.B. Mishra, for the Applicant/Appellant.
1. Shri. Jetly, the learned Counsel appearing in support of the Motion, states that the Respondents have been served and undertakes to file Affidavit of Service within a week from today.
2. This Motion seeks condonation of 639 days delay in taking out this Motion to set aside the order dated 25th August 2016 passed by the Prothonotary & Senior Master rejecting the Appeal under the Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules for non removal of the office objections.
3. We perused the Affidavit in Support of the Motion. The Affidavit in support states that
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
s not absolve that the officers of the Revenue to keep themselves abreact of the proceedings in this Court and/or taking appropriate steps to appoint new advocate for the first panel. Not taking steps in the above regard is itself evidence of negligence on the part of the Revenue.
5. In fact, this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Industries Limited [2017]84 Taxmann. Com 313 (Bombay) while dealing with a direct tax Appeal had made the following observations:
“8. We have found that if the number of appeals filed by the Revenue are approximately thousand per year or more, then, we expect the Revenue to appoint and depute responsible officials and to follow up the legal cases and matters in this Court. The officers cannot pass on the buck to some junior level employees or clerical staff. This is routinely happening inasmuch as the Departmental heads have not been attending the cases by taking a periodical review of the proceedings or appeals lodged in this Court. They han
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
years the Revenue officials have not noticed the lodging, filing or pendency of an appeal, a conditional order of the Registry, then, it must set its own house in order by sacking and removing the delinquent and negligent officials or penalising them otherwise so as to sub-serve larger public interest. If they are found to be hand-in-glove with the assessee and adopt such tactics deliberately, then, we do not think that the Court is responsible for the same. The Registrar (O.S.) has been drawing up a list and notifying the appeals regularly and intimating the parties and their Advocates through the High Court website that they must attend to these cases or else all consequences including dismissal without adjudication on merit, will follow…..”
The aforesaid observations apply equally to the present facts.
6. In the above view, we are not satisfied with the reasons set out in support of the Applicant to condone the delay as it evidences negligence on the part of the Revenue.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =