Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
State Bank Of India vs Cce, S.T., Meerut-I on 13 September, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
Single Member Bench
Court No. 4
ST/COD/56799/2012-SM, ST/Stay/56798/2013, ST/56331/2013
Date of hearing/Decision: 23.8.2013
Date of Pronouncement: 13/9/2013
(Arising out of OIA No.53-ST/MRT-I/2012 dated 14/05/2012 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Customs Central Excise & Service Tax, Meerut-I
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3.
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
State Bank of India Appellant
Vs.
CCE, S.T., Meerut-I Respondent
Appearance:
Present for the Appellant: Shri Ankur Jain, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Ms. S. Bector, DR Coram: Honble Mr. Manmohan Singh, Technical Member Final ORDER NO.57622/2013 PER: MANMOHAN SINGH Shri Ankur Jain, counsel of the appellant State Bank of India Vs. CCE Meerut-I requested for condonation of 158 days on the ground that there was reorganization in their Bank and records were being shifted from one place to another. And this resulted in delay in filing appeal. But when case was last heard on 31//5/2013 wherein advocate was directed to give an affidavit to be filed by an officer not less that rank of AGM justifying reasons for this abnormal delay.
2. In response, an affidavit has been filed by Shri V.K. Sharma, who is currently posted as Chief Manager HR Admin, State Bank of India, Noida (earlier Zonal Office, Garh Road, Meerut). When enquired why an affidavit has not been filed by AGM, appellant informed that in their Admin. Office to which matter pertains, no AGM level officer is posted. Actually AGM is in Zonal office Meerut. The Admin Office is under control of DGM.
2. I have gone through the reason as stated in the Affidavit. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 53-ST/MRT-I/2012 dated 14.05.2012 has been filed, but beyond the period of limitation alongwith an application for Condonation of Delay. Reason for delay are stated that due to administrative exigencies and contingencies of an administrative office, appeal could not be filed in time. It is stated further that during the period of filing appeal, there was large scale re-organization of various offices, which resulted in the large scale reshuffle / transfer of officials. It is further stated that large scale re-organization project in the LHO/ZO/RO of the Bank was undertaken in July 2008. Therefore, a comprehensive review of the efficacy of the re-designed LHO/ZO/RO structure was carried out by Corporate Centre and it was advised that certain refinements in the structure may be carried out so that the objectives for which the re-design was launched, could achieve the parameters of redesign affectively. That in continuance of Zonal Office, Garh Road, Meerut during the financial Year 2012-13, large scale re-organization, reshuffling, transfer of authorities and frequency shifting/transfer of officers besides amalgamated of officer and posts took place. They have further submitted that their office was shifted from Garh Road Meerut to Tower B, B-31, Ist Floor, Sector-62, Noida.
3. I find that reasons stated above are not substantive. In a institution like Bank that too Indias larger Bank i.e. State Bank of India, where day to day functions are compulsory and completed on same day, no justification of delay for such large number of days can be considered appropriate. Being a public sector Bank, does not grant it ipso-facto concession to delay or ignore essential matters relating to legal matters that too filing a appeal before tribunal. In this regard I have also perused judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Office Of The Chief Post Master General Vs. Living Media India Ltd. reported in 2012 (277) ELT 289 (S.C.) whereas Supreme Court held that condonation of delay cannot be done mechanically merely because Government or its wing was party before Court. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation government cannot plead that there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction of lack of bona fide claim of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of modern technologies being used and available .
4. In view of law laid down by Supreme Court and also going through affidavit, I do not find any worthwhile reasons to condone the delay of 158 days.
5. Accordingly application for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently stay application and appeals are also disposed off.
(Pronounced in the open Court on 13/9/2013) (MANMOHAN SINGH) Member (Technical) K. Gupta