Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

     S.No.      Date                        Events
       1     31.07.2011   Intimation by the Department
       2     08.02.2012   Show Cause Notice No.11/2012-ADC
       3     28.03.2012   Order-in-Original No. 8/2012-ADC
       4     27.08.2013   Order-in-Appeal No. 279/2013
       5     27.09.2013   VCES application made
       6     15.11.2013   VCES application rejected
       7     24.01.2014   Appeal filed before the Commr.(Appeals)
                          against VCES rejection
      8      11.02.2014   Appeal returned stating that there was no
                          provision for appeal under VCES
      9      11.06.2015   Order in Writ petition by the Hon'ble High
                          Court directing the Commr.(Appeals) to
                          dispose of the appeal on merits.
      10     22.01.2016   Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the
                          appeal.
      11     25.10.2017   Vide Final Order No. 42372/2017 dated
                          25.10.207, the Tribunal dismissed the

appeal after recording the confession by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the appeal was not against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in merits but only against the rejection of VCES application.

2. From the above, it is evident that the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) dated 27.08.2013 became final since the same was accepted without challenge by the appellant probably because the appellant felt that the demand in the order was legal and correct. Nonetheless the appellant made an application under Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (in short VCES) and the same was pursued for more than a year till the appellant's appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) the appellant pursued only the validity of the rejection of its application under VCES which came to be returned vide order dated 11.02.2014 by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Against this order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) the appellant preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The only issue, as noted by the Hon'ble High Court at page-8, paragraph-9 of its order in the above writ petition is as under:-

4. Accordingly, the Ld. Commissioner passed an order dated 22.01.2016 rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant. Against this order of the Ld. Commissioner, the appellant filed an appeal before this forum which came to be dismissed in terms of the order as extracted against S.No. 11 in the above table.

5. Now by this appeal the appellant wants to impugn the OIA No. 279/2013 dated 27.08.2013 (Sl.No.4) for which there is a delay of 1553 days. In its application for condonation of the above inordinate delay the appellant submitted interalia, that under a bonafide belief it had filed the declaration under VCES seeking immunity from interest and penalty which was rejected; that an appeal was filed against the said rejection which was pursued before the Hon'ble High Court; that as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court the matter was decided on merits by the Commissioner (Appeals), which was upheld by this Bench; that the pendency of the same issue before various judicial forums delayed the filing of the present appeal and hence claimed that the delay caused was not intentional, etc.

ii) Evidently, the delay in the case on hand is inordinate and the explanation sought to be offered is not satisfactory or convincing. Having pursued appeals on the validity of declaration under VCES, nothing prevented the appellant who kept on filing appeals under VCES to file an appeal even on merits and this approach is nothing but elective and also indicates that the order impugned has been now appealed to this forum was at that stage accepted by them. We are unable to exercise any discretion in this matter since the appellant has failed to establish that it was alert or vigilant. It is not its case that it has otherwise averse to litigation or that there was no instruction at all to the ld. Counsel with help to filing of appeals. We have carefully gone through the decisions relied by the Ld. Counsel, we also observe that our view is supported by jurisdictional High Court's decision in the case of Triveni Alloys Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai reported in 2014 (306) ELT 617 (Mad.).