Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... vs D.V. Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. on 8 November, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(82)ECC796, 2002(149)ELT290(TRI-KOLKATA)
JUDGMENT
S.S. Sekhon
1. This Condonation of Delay Application has been filed by the Revenue in the wake of delay in filing the appeal to the Tribunal. The Board's Order dated 28.11.2000 is said to have been received in the Commissioner's Office on 29.1.2001 and thereafter, the appeal was filed on 5.7.2001 against the Order of Commissioner dated 25.1.2000.
2. The delay is explained with the following time-chart:-
"a) Commissioner, Central Excise, Bhubaneswar-II received the Board Order No. 239-R/2000 dated 28.11.2000 on 29.1.2001 and marked the same to Joint Commissioner (Appeals) on that day with a direction for immediate further action.
b) Joint Commissioner (Appeals) on 30.1.2000 marked the said order to Superintendent (Trib.) Hqrs. Office.
c) Superintendent (Trib.) on 31.1.2001 sent the Board's order to adjudication section of Hqrs. Office with a remark, 'file relates to adjudication section. Please send it to adjudication section.
d) The said order was received by adjudication section on 31.1.2001 at 1700 hrs.
e) Superintendent (Adjn.) of Hqrs. Office put up the said order in file No. V(72/73)15/Adjn./11A/19/96 to Joint Commissioner (A) on 1.2.2001 for perusal and necessary order.
f) Joint Commissioner (A) noted on the file on 18.4.2001 with a remark 'please discuss' without any indication to whom the file has been marked.
g) Superintendent (Adjn.) of Hqrs. Office put up the same file on 18.4.2001 to Joint Commissioner (A) for giving orders.
h) Period of tour of the Joint Commissioner on Inspection, Court duties and as Expenditure observer on deputation for Election duties.
From dt. 16.02.2001 to dt. 18.02.2001 From dt. 21-03-2001 to 25-03-2001 From dt. 31-03-2001 to dt. 07-04-2001 From dt. 09-04-2001 to dt. 11-04-2001 From dt. 20-04-2001 to 16-05-2001 From dt. 08-06-2001 to dt. 12-06-2001 From dt. 14-06-2001 to dt. 21-06-2001
i) Dealing Officer in his noting dt. 26-06-2001 noted as follows:-
'File returned by JC (Tech) today i.e. 26-06-2001 with the direction to submit the same to JC (Adjn)'.
During the above period, even though there were two officers in the grade of Joint Commissioner but one officer on leave for major part and he retired on 30-04-2001.
j) Superintendent (Adjn) of Hqrs. Office put up the same file to Joint Commissioner on 26.6.2001 with a proposal for handing over the file to Tribunal/Judicial/Review Section of Hqrs. Office for preparation of appeal.
k) Joint Commissioner submitted the file to Commissioner on 28.6.2001 for further Orders by indicating that the matter has become time-barred.
l) After examination of the issue, Commissioner directed for filing Appeal and also orally directed for filing Miscellaneous Application for condonation of the delay on 28.6.2001 besides direction for fixing up of responsibility for the delay.
m) The Tribunal Section submitted draft appeal memorandum on 29.6.2001 to the Commissioner and after examination, approval was given by Commissioner on 02-07-2001.
n) Extract of note sheet bearing Nos. 26, 27 & 28 of File No. V(72/73)15/Adjn./11A/19/96 is enclosed."
3. Shri D.K. Bhowmik, J.D.R. for the Department submits that the delay has been explained in the above-referred time-chart and it requires to be condoned.
4. Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, learned Consultant for the respondent company, on the other hand, submits that the grounds given are routine administrative reasons and no specific reason for the delay has been brought out, which give rise to a specific consideration for condoning the same. More so, when the Review of the Order was finalised within time, there was no reason for the Commissioner to have delayed in filing the appeal beyond the period prescribed under law.
5. We have considered the submissions made from both sides and the reasons given in the above-referred time-chart. We do not find any justifiable reason for condoning the delay for the grounds as mentioned by the applicant Commissioner in his Condonation of Delay Application. The Application is, therefore, rejected. It is not that the delay can be explained by each day's activity in the Commissionerate. The activity should be such that the delay was an inevitable result. We do not find any such unavoidable activity. The activities mentioned are all routine and necessary steps could have been taken to file the appeal within the prescribed time.
In view of the above, as the Condonation of Delay Application is rejected, the appeal also gets disposed of as barred by time. Ordered accordingly.
Dictated in the open court.