The Bombay High Court dismissed an application seeking condonation of 746 days delay, holding the Revenue's explanation of officer transfers and departmental reconstitution insufficient and evidencing negligence.
Notice of Motion to condone delay and set aside the order dated 10.12.2015 was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
9nma247-18.odt
spb/
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 247 OF 2018 IN CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L) NO. 122 OF 2015
The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Daman Commissionerate ... Applicant.
In the matter between :
The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Daman Commissionerate ... Appellant.
v/s.
Jai Corporation Ltd.. … Respondent.
Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly, Advocate a/w. Mr. J. B. Mishra for the Applicant / Appellant.
CORAM : M. S. SANKLECHA And RIYAZ IQBAL CHAGLA,JJ.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 07, 2018. P.C.
Shalikram Digitally signedby Shalikram Pralhadrao Pralhadrao Borey Borey Date: 2018.09.1219:49:16 +0530
1/4
Borey
9nma247-18.odt
spb/
High Court (O.S.) Rules. This for failure to remove office objections on or before 07.01.2016, as directed by the above order dated 10.12.2015.
2/4
Borey
9nma247-18.odt
spb/
“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 hand over the papers to Advocates and thereafter are not bothered about the outcome of these appeals. It is for the Revenue or the Department to take the necessary action but they do not feel obliged to do so. They expect this Court to condone serious lapses in their functioning by accepting above cause as sufficient. The cause as set out and the explanation as forwarded today, on affidavit and belatedly, reflects total negligence and callousness of the Revenue officials. Their attitude shows that they are not at all vigilant and interested in pursuing the cases filed by the Department involving a tax effect of crores of rupees. They expect the Court to be lenient and liberal and pardon them every time. It is this approach of the Revenue officials which is not only strongly deprecated in the earlier order but this Court has refused to uphold it after it was noticed that this is the position in almost every matter.”
3/4
Borey
spb/
9nma247-18.odt
(RIYAZ IQBAL CHAGLA,J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
…..
4/4
Borey
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Daman Commissionerate
Jai Corporation Ltd.
M. S. Sanklecha
Riyaz Iqbal Chagla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
