TIOL Tube
Forgot Password |  Register  
Tuesday , May 31, 2016 | Updated : May 31, 12:43 IST
Income Tax    Customs    Excise    Service Tax    FEMA    DGFT    SEZ    Misc    Pitara    Budget   
About Us Contact Us Advertise
Fire breaks out at biggest Army Ammunition Depot near Nagpur, 17 killed ACC appoints Vasundhara Sinha, IRS, as Addl DGFT + P K Mishra, IRS, as FIU + Anandarajan, IRS, as JS, Department of Defence (See ‘Mixed Buzz’) Facility of transfer of CENVAT Credit under Rule 10 of CCRs, 2004 is available for shifted units also - Absence of word 'shifted' in said sub-rule appears to be an inadvertence: CESTAT (See 'Breaking News') Equalisation Levy Rules Notified(See 'DDT Column') CX - Settlement - None of provisions in Chapter V dealing with 'settlement of cases' envisages CCESC sending matter for adjudication to Officer because there was no consensus between applicant & Department - Orders set aside: HC (See 'Breaking News') Whether closed or defunct units are liable to pay Penalty under 12(6) of CER, 2002? (See 'Guest Column') I-T - Whether denial to release cash seized from armoured vehicle which was hired by banks to transport cash can be sustained as Revenue was yet to verify cash slips from customers - NO: HC (See 'Breaking News') KKC – it is Finance Act, 2016 + Krishi Kalyan Cess - Board Bungles Year (See 'DDT') Water dispensers imported – Whether RSP assessment is applicable - No error in order of original authority allowing refund by holding RSP is not applicable: CESTAT (See 'Breaking News') Sectorial Impact of Proposed GST Law on E-Commerce in India (See 'Guest Column') CX - Benefit of 15% discount on MRP claimed in price list in terms of Notfn. 245/83 - whether prices were approved by DPCO - no evidence produced by assessee before lower authorities as well as Tribunal - whether claim is wrong and fraudulent and, therefore, extended period is invocable - Difference of Opinion: CESTAT (See 'Breaking News') CBDT notifies Dispute Resolution Scheme Rules + Equalisation Levy Rules (See 'What's New') FM urges taxpayers to make good use of income disclosure window and sleep well Govt notifies Fare Fixation Committee for Delhi Metro; Report to be submitted in 90 days No unanimity on issue of full statehood to Delhi: Naidu Japan may delay announced hike in sales tax rate Maruti Suzuki temporarily suspends production due to fire at Manesar factory of component supplier Subros Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, gets Presidential assent Service Tax - Krishi Kalyan Cess - On All Taxable Services - Notifications Issued (See 'DDT Column') Krishi Kalyan Cess - yet another Cess (See 'ST se GST tak') Lessons from Monsanto: Stronger policy & innovation is way forward! (See 'Guest Column') I-T- Whether retirement benefits received by employee of SBI are entitled to benefit of exemption u/s 10(10C) - YES: HC (See '2016-TIOL-1024') Life Made Easy For NRIs (See 'Book Review' in 'TIOL Library') Is interest rate on delayed payments actually compensatory? (See 'ST se GST tak') Services under Full Reverse Charge - All Stick and no Carrot? (See 'ST se GST tak') Centre asks States not to allow diversion of Finance Commission grants sanctioned for Urban Local Bodies
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.


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)

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.

Posted by Joint Chief Departmental Representative
Download on the App Store
Get it on Google play
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
  • Instructions
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • ITAT Cases
  • Advance Ruling
  • Settlement
  • Other Cases
  • Directorate of Income Tax (Systems)
  • Tariff Notfn
  • CVD
  • Non Tariff Notfn
  • Circulars
  • Anti-dumping Notfn
  • Safeguard Duty Notfn
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • Cestat Cases
  • Advance Ruling
  • Settlement
  • Drawback Cases
  • MISC Circulars
  • Tariff Notfn
  • Non Tariff Notfn
  • Circulars
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • Cestat Cases
  • Advance Ruling
  • Cesses Notfications
  • Excise Amendment
  • MISC Circulars
  • 37B Order
  • Settlement
  • Commr.(A) Order
  • Tribunal
  • Notifications
  • Circulars
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • Cestat Cases
  • Advance Ruling
  • FAQ
  • Finance Act, 1994
  • Commr. (A) Orders
  • 37B Order
  • Removal of Difficulty
  • VCES
  • Accounting Head
  • Miscellaneous
  • DIPP Notification
  • Exchange Manual
  • Fema Notifications
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • RBI Notifications
  • RBI Circulars
  • Act
  • Rules
  • Regulations
  • Master Circulars
  • PMLA Notifications
  • Depository Scheme
  • Press Note
  • Notifications
  • Circulars
  • Public Notices
  • Trade Notice
  • FTDR Amendment 2010
  • Notifications
  • Instructions
  • Act 2005
  • Rules 2006
  • DGEP
  • State Acts
  • State Policy
  • MISC
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • VAT Cases
  • Service News
  • Promotion
  • Transfer
  • Deputation Posts
  • Cadre Review
  • Transfer Policy
  • Training Circulars
  • Recruitment Rules
  • Pay Commission
  • Service Cases
  • The Insider
  • MISC
  • Budget Speeches
  • Union Budgets
  • Economic Surveys
  • TRU - D. O. Letter
  • Finance Acts
  • Finance Bill
  • Budget Circular
  • A Taxindiaonline Website. Copyright © 2016 Pvt.Ltd. All rights reserved. | Powered by 4th Dimension