2021 (7) TMI 399 - SCH - Central Excise

Stay on recovery - Excisability of Signages which are erected at various petrol bunks of IOC - Circular No.58/1/02-CX dated 15.1.2002 - plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that similar matters are pending in M/S. VIRGO INDUSTRIES (ENGINEERS) PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CHENNAI II COMMISSIONRATE 2018 (7) TMI 1509 - SUPREME COURT - HELD THAT - Merely because similar matters are pending is not a ground to grant leave and take the matter when the authorities have been negligent in filing the appeal. It is repeatedly emphasized that unless the case is brought within the parameters of OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL VERSUS LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD. 2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT we would not be inclined to condone the delay and have in fact dismissed the special leave petitions with cost categorizing them as certificate cases only brought before the Court to complete a formality and save the skin of the officers concerned. The learned Additional Solicitor General requests for three months time to complete the process - List on 03-09-2021.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, negligence of authorities, recovery of amount, action against officers.

In this judgment by the Supreme Court of India, the impugned order was passed by the CESTAT on 20-05-2019, and the proposal was sent to the Ministry of Finance on 06-01-2020, after a six-month delay. The petitioner's counsel argued that similar matters are pending in Civil Appeal No. 6550/2015 and other connected cases. The Court emphasized that the mere pendency of similar matters does not justify condoning delays, especially when authorities have been negligent in filing appeals. Referring to the Chief Post Master General case, the Court stated that delays cannot be condoned unless brought within specific parameters, dismissing special leave petitions as "certificate cases" meant to save officers' skin.

The petitioner's counsel highlighted that over &8377; 5 Crores were at stake, suggesting recovery from the officers responsible. The Court, before proceeding, sought information on actions taken against the officers involved. If no action had been initiated, the Court demanded an inquiry, fixing responsibility, and presenting the action taken against the officers. The Additional Solicitor General requested three months to complete the process, which the Court noted with skepticism, pointing out the significant delays in filing the special leave petition and the additional time required for action against the officers, questioning the revenue authorities' efficiency. The Court scheduled the next hearing for 03-09-2021.