Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2019 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 790 - HC - CustomsCondonation of delay in filing petition - delay incurred in the process of gathering information from its marketing location covering different Land Customs Station - no order was passed giving reasons to denied condonation - powers vested under Rule 17 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 -sufficient reasons for condonation of delay or not - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the file, we were surprised to note that no formal order was passed in this regard although the consideration of condonation application and its disposal was a quasi judicial discharge by the Commissioner of Central Excise. There is no contest on merits of the claim as well as on the entitlement of the petitioner to seek a brand rate rather the only impediment on such relief is the delay whatsoever. In other words, if the delay is condoned, the relief is consequential. It is through a file noting and a simple query by the Commissioner as to the ‘grounds for condonation’ which has been interpreted as a rejection of the application. The file noting confirms that the Commissioner has simply noted that a condonation can be considered where an applicant had provided adequate evidence of being prevented by sufficient cause in filing the application within the prescribed time but if no reason has been cited then on what grounds the condonation can be granted - other lacuna of the proceeding is that in case the Commissioner was not satisfied on the reasons assigned by the petitioner in his condonation application, he should have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to clarify the position but certainly the manner of disposal of the condonation application leaves much to be desired. The remarks of the Commissioner on the condonation application would not amount to rejection of the condonation application in absence of any order to such effect. Besides, the fact that such remark was interfered by the Commissioner (Appeals) to find merit in the explanation to the delay given by the petitioner coupled with the revised time limit under the Circular dated 24.6.2010, the order of the Joint Secretary dated 16.11.2015 in purported exercise of revisional jurisdiction impugned at Annexure-5 together with letter dated 03.05.2017 of the Under Secretary, Government of India in its Ministry of Finance impugned at Annexure-7 are on complete misappreciation of the legal position and are accordingly quashed and set aside. Petition allowed.
|