The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs Sadanand Chaudhary consisting of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan, while rejecting applications regarding condonation of delay in filing an appeal, held that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments.
Facts:
The Revenue appealed against an order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was filed u/s 130(2A) of the Customs Act 1962. The order reduced the penalties imposed on the respondent's Customs Broker License under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013, to forfeiture of the security deposit. The respondent was accused of not verifying the antecedents and correctness of the Import-Export Code No., the identity of his client, and the functioning of his client at the declared address. The importer was accused of overvaluing the consignment imported for making fraudulent drawback claims.
Contention Made:
Appellant: It was contended that the regulations have two penalties- revocation of license and forfeiture of security and a penalty. Any punishment that only includes forfeiture of security is not allowed according to the Division Bench’s decision in Commissioner of Customs (General) v. KVS Cargo.
Observations of the Court:
The Bench felt it necessary to determine whether the delay in filing the same required to be excused before moving on to analyse the dispute in this appeal. After a delay of 307 days, this appeal was submitted on July 30, 2019. The reason offered was that the impugned order was misplaced accidentally because the office of the petitioner’s counsel was undergoing renovations. After the impugned order was discovered, the current appeal was then submitted. It noted that the request for condonation of delay lacked details. The only explanation given was regarding the renovation, and the order being misplaced but found later. It found this explanation insufficient and questioned why the department was unaware if an appeal had been filed or not. It also criticized the department for being too relaxed once they instructed the lawyer to file the appeal. It was also found relevant to observe that there was a significant 109-day delay in re-filing the appeal, which was caused by the appeal memo being returned with objections and some of the papers, including the affidavit, getting misplaced. This led to a delay in locating the papers and re-filing the appeal with the court registry.
The Bench relied on Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd. to note that there is no need to accept the common justification that the case was kept pending for several months or years due to significant amounts of procedural red tape in the process unless government bodies present a valid and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was a genuine effort. Government agencies have a specific duty to make sure that they carry out their responsibilities with effort and dedication. Government agencies should not expect the condonation of delays to be a benefit, as this is an exception. The law protects everyone under the same umbrella and shouldn't be bent for the sake of a select few.
In addition to the above, there was a significant delay in processing the current appeal. The notice was issued on December 18, 2019, but the respondent could not be notified. Due to the pandemic, the court's operations were shortened, and the hearings were postponed. Although the appeal was scheduled for April 25, 2022, the appellant did not appear. On October 10th, 2022, it was discovered that the respondent had not received a notice and new orders were given for the appellant to issue a fresh notice. The case was scheduled for November 4th, 2022, but the appellant failed to take any action to serve the notice to the respondent. The original notice was returned with the remark left and a new notice was directed to be sent to the correct address of the respondent, but the appellant did not provide the correct address. Therefore, as of the day of judgment, the respondent had not been served with a notice.
Judgment:
The Bench found no reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal or re-filing the same. The applications seeking condonation of such delay were rejected. So, the appeal was dismissed.
Case: Commissioner of Customs vs Sadanand Chaudhary
Citation: W.P.(C) 6583/2017
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Mahajan
For Appellant: Mr. Harpreet Singh, SSC with Ms. Suhani Mathur & Mr. Jatin Gaur, Advs.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :