Taxindiaonline.com Taxindiaonline.com Taxindiainternational.com HRindiaonline.com
 
LOGIN
Forgot Password |  Register
Wednesday , August 20, 2014 | Updated : Aug 20, 16:36 IST
Income Tax    Customs    Excise    Service Tax    FEMA    DGFT    SEZ    Misc    Pitara    Budget   
About Us Contact Us Advertise
Taxindiaonline.com Taxindiaonline.com Taxindiainternational.com
NEWS FLASH
 
CX - Delay of 406 days in filing appeal before CESTAT not condoned -Dues of more than Rs.8 crores - petitioner selling the company and machineries in auction and same bought by close relatives - conduct of petitioner lacks bonafide - Petition dismissed: High Court (See 'Breaking News')' Lucknow DRI seizes 107 kg Nepali hashish being carted by Maruti car; Two persons arrested Govt notifies hike in PPF threshold from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 1.5 lakh (See Saving Scheme in 'TIOL Library') CBEC lays down Guidelines for seeking Customs exemption u/s 25(2) (See Cir 9 in 'What's New') MoF releases Draft Rules on Forward Contracts Regulations (See 'What's New') CBDT all set to promote IRS officers of 1981-86 batches as Principal CIT and 1992-94 batches as CIT NY Banking Regulator imposes fine of USD 300 mn on Stan Chart bank for poor anti-money laundering norms Mr. Prime Servant – Here is a sample of your Ir-Reverent Servant (See 'DDT' Column) ST - Tax paid by appellant on reverse charge basis in respect of services provided by its agents in J&K and credit availed thereof - CENVAT Credit taken by appellant is nothing but refund of service tax paid by them on services on which they were not required to pay service tax: CESTAT (See 'Breaking News') AV of imported goods - inclusion of packing & labelling costs (See 'Guest' Column) CX - Ceramic Tiles cleared to builders, hotels & schools under contract are to be valued in terms of s.4 & not s.4A - Demand upheld & appeal rejected: CESTAT (See 'Breaking News') About a Hundred crores spent/wasted on CBDT Officers foreign Jaunts (See 'DDT') Income tax - Whether an exporter is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80HHC for deemed credit under CENVAT Incentive Scheme - YES: HC (See 'Breaking News') Ebola scare: Delhi Airport yet to come across first suspect (See 'Mixed Buzz') Demand of duty on clandestine removals - Since appellant had prepared invoices during period, clearly indicating therein that they are operating under compounded levy scheme, it cannot be held that they had removed goods clandestinely: CESTAT (See 'Breaking News') Amma Wants Central GST also to be handed over to States + States meeting today on GST issue (See 'DDT') PM says Govt not to tolerate culture of corruption Our REITs, their REITs (See 'Edit' in 'Taxindiainternational.com') Service Tax collections surpass Rs. 51000 Cr. in four months Guwahati Customs seizes 804 kg of cannabis concealed with Emami products; two persons arrested Motor Vehicles Act to be amended to end corruption in RTO offices: Gadkari (See 'Mixed Buzz') Urban Development Minister seeks Action Plan from DDA & municipal bodies for regularization of unauthorized colonies (See 'Mixed Buzz') CBDT issues transfer order of 79 ACITs/DCITs (See 'Transfer' in Pitara) To dismantle Planning Commission PM invites ideas from public for creating new body Cus - Provisional assessments made before 13.07.2006 but finalised on 18.07.2011 - Interest not leviable on differential duty u/s 18(3) of CA, 1962 - Fresh liability to be considered prospective: CESTAT (See 'Breaking News') CX - Clandestine manufacture and removal of Ingots without payment of duty cannot be alleged merely on basis of electricity consumption: CESTAT by Majority (See 'Breaking News') Independence Day – Modi’s Speech – Watching from a Neighbouring Country (See 'DDT' Column) Income tax - Whether Section 80IA benefits are available to captive electricity unit supplying power to assessee's manufacturing plant - YES: HC (See 'Breaking News') Renewed confusion - ST on recovery agent's services (See 'ST se GST tak' Column) CX – Right to sell in DTA accrues on first day of FY – vested right cannot be taken away merely because there was delay in issuing letter of permission by DC - such an interpretation would make mockery of provisions of EXIM policy: CESTAT (See 'Breaking News') DoP&T completes Service Allocation of 981 of 1122 candidates of 2013 Civil Services Exams (See 'Mixed Buzz') Adieu Planning Commission (See 'DDT') Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to review order of pre-deposit, but if such order is erroneous, Tribunal is required to remand matter to Appellate Commissioner after passing appropriate order as to pre-deposit as laid down by Tribunal itself in Girnar Transformers case - Matter remanded: HC (See 'Breaking News') More R & D required to trace Saraswati River: Minister (See 'Mixed Buzz') Pakistan holding talks with J & K separatists; India calls off Foreign Secretary-level talks 18 killed in train-three wheeler collision in East Champaran District in Bihar
 
Bookmark and Share
Condonation of delay - At toss to meet end of justice!

By Neha Pandit, Advocate

'INTEREST Republicae up sit finis litum' is the basis of the provisions of limitation in any law, but to uphold the "Principles of Natural Justice" and to reach the end of justice, the clause of "CONDONATION OF DELAY" (COD) has been incorporated in it.

The Authorities of justice can condone the delay to advance substantial justice. Therefore, delay can be condoned if sufficient cause is shown for not presenting appeal in time. Though delay up to last day of filing an appeal need not be explained, but, delay thereafter has to be explained.

Power of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay

Delay may be due to genuine reasons. Hence, Commissioner Appeals can condone delay up to 30 days. As per the provisions of law, Commissioner of Appeals has no powers to condone delay beyond 30 days.

Whether Tribunal can go beyond the law and condone such delay and remand the matter back to the Commissioner Appeals? To meet the end of justice, whether strict adherence of law in such matters is justifiable?

Initially, in Rayman Shoe Co. V. CCE, it was held that Commissioner cannot condone delay (beyond 30 days) and Tribunal cannot order Commissioner to condone delay and hear the case on merits or condone delay itself. Tribunal can't go into the merits of the case.

Bangalore Bench, in a number of cases, specially, in Shri Vishnu Process v. CCE, Bangalore (2005-TIOL-1506-CESTAT-BANG) held that Tribunal cannot exercise any power where statute has fixed the period for COD in a case where statute has not given any power to the Authority to condone the delay beyond the statutory period on sufficient cause being shown.

Similar view has been taken in Abhishek Auto Industries v. CC, Mumbai wherein it was held that Commissioner Appeals is not competent to entertain an appeal beyond the period on 90 days in view of specific provision contained in section 128 (1) of Customs Act, 1962.

Therefore, lawfully, if the statute provides for a period of limitation and further maximum period of limitation for which delay can be condoned, the Authority cannot extend the same.

If the legislature in its wisdom has fixed a maximum period for doing a particular thing, the Authority is not competent to prescribe the period beyond it.

Conflicting Decisions

Recently, a conflicting view has been taken by the Tribunal, Chennai, while deciding Raj and Co. v. CC, Chennai (2006-TIOL-1607-CESTAT-MAD) wherein the Tribunal condoned the delay of 256 days in filing Appeal before Commissioner Appeals and directed Ld. Commissioner Appeals to dispose off the Appeal too.

"In nutshell, Tribunal surpassed the provisions of law to meet the end of justice ".

Liberal views of COD while dealing with the Govt

Another irony could be viewed in similar matters, wherein the delay of the Government is condoned, and their cases are remanded back to the Commissioner Appeals for the adjudication.

In the case of Asst. Collector of CCE, Nagapattinam v. Marimuthu, the High Court of Madras, condoned delay of 131 days for a Govt Department on the ground that records were messed up with other papers in the office and the case was remanded.

The law of limitation, no doubt, is the same for a Private Citizen as for Governmental authorities. Government, like any other litigant must take responsibility for the Acts or omission of its officers. The provisions of law applicable to the government and private person are same and hence the expression sufficient cause cannot be construed too liberally because party in default is Government.

CONCLUSION

Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but see their remedy promptly.

"The technicalities of law cannot prevent court for doing substantial justice". Despite that, sometimes, the adoption of strict standard of proof (regarding reasons for the delay in filing appeal) tends to grave miscarriage of public justice.

Now the question, whether adherence to strict standards of law, that goes against justice should be followed?

(The author is a Bangalore-based Advocate)


 RECENT DISCUSSION(S) POST YOUR COMMENTS
   
 
Sub: delay condonation by commissioner Appeals

In the case of Delta Impex 2004/173/ELT/449 The Hon'ble High Court Delhi held that when maximum time limit is specified or a condonable period is prescribed delay within the condonable period alone can be condoned.similarly in the case of M.R. Tobacco the Hon'ble High Court Delhi once agian emphasised that Commissioner Appeals cannot condone delay beyond 30 days and this view was upheld by the Apex Court in 2007/213/ELT/A115. The decision of the Chennai Bench refered in the article was not for condonation of 256 days of delay but to ascertain the correct date of receipt of the order and then the Bench observed that there was no delay if the date of receipt was taken correctly.
SDR CHENNAI

Posted by Joint Chief Departmental Representative
 
 
 
TIOL SEARCH
 
TIOL Mobile App
TIOL Subscriptions
 All-In-One Package
 Indirect Tax Package
 Income Tax Package
<< More Packages>>
 
   
             
Income Tax Customs Excise Service Tax FEMA DGFT SEZ Misc Pitara Budget
  • Notifications
  • Circulars
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • ITAT Cases
  • Instructions
  • Advance Ruling
  • Settlement
  • Other Case
  • Directorate of Income Tax (Systems)
  • Tariff Notfn
  • Non Tariff Notfn
  • Circulars
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • Cestat Cases
  • Settlement
  • Advance Ruling
  • Safeguard Duty Notfn
  • Anti-dumping Notfn
  • Drawback Cases
  • Tariff Notfn
  • Non Tariff Notfn
  • Circulars
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • Cestat Cases
  • Settlement
  • Advance Ruling
  • Excise Amendment
  • Clean Energy Cess Notfn
  • MISC Circulars
  • 37B Order
  • Commr.(A) Order
  • CESTAT
  • Notifications
  • Circulars
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • Cestat Cases
  • Miscellaneous
  • Advance Ruling
  • FAQ
  • Finance Act, 1994
  • Commr. (A) Orders
  • 37B Order
  • Removal of Difficulty
  • VCES
  • Accounting Head
  • Exchange Manual
  • Fema Notifications
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • RBI Notifications
  • Act
  • Rules
  • Regulations
  • Master Circulars
  • RBI Circulars
  • Notifications
  • Circulars
  • Public Notices
  • Trade Notice
  • FTDR Amendment 2010
  • MISC
  • State Acts
  • Notifications
  • Instructions
  • Act 2005
  • Rules 2006
  • DGEP
  • State Policy
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • VAT Cases
  • Deputation Posts
  • Service News
  • The Insider
  • Transfer
  • Promotion
  • Recruitment Rules
  • Transfer Policy
  • Training Circulars
  • Service Cases
  • MISC
  • Pay Commission
  • Cadre Review
  • Budget Circular 2013-14
  • Union Budgets
  • Economic Surveys
  • Budget Speeches
  • Finance Acts
  • Finance Bill
  • TRU - D. O. Letter
  • A Taxindiaonline Website. Copyright © 2014 Taxindiaonline.com Pvt.Ltd. All rights reserved. | Powered by 4th Dimension