TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (CESTAT) vide Annexure-C and seeking confirmation of the order in Appeal No. 72/1999-Cus., dated 28-4-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Appeals, Bangalore vide Annexure-B. 2. Though the challenge is made to the order dated 8-4-2004, the appeal is filed only on 16-6-2008 and therefore, the matter is posted for condonation of delay of 1280 days. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on the question of delay in filing the appeal and perused the application for condonation of delay as well as the application for dispensation of production of the certified copy of the order No. 361/2004-B dated 8-4-2004 passed by CESTAT. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that final order No. 361/2004-B dated 8-4-2004 was passed by CESTAT, New Delhi and against the said order, an appeal had to be filed before this Court, however, an appeal was filed before the Delhi High Court in CUS. A.C. 2/2005 and when the matter was heard on 16-10-2006, the Delhi High Court felt that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and after seeking permission to withdraw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spensation of production of certified copy would be considered by the Court and time is granted for production of the certified copy and it is only on compliance of office objection that the appeal would be posted before the Court for admission. Such a practice is followed in order to ensure that the appeal is filed in time. In the instant case, though an application for dispensation of the production of certified copy of the order of CESTAT has been filed along with the memorandum of appeal, we find that there is no sufficient reason to condone the delay of 1280 days in filing this appeal. 7. On a reading of the affidavit of the Joint Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore dated 13-6-2008, it is not apparent as to why, the order dated 8-4-2004 passed by CESTAT, New Delhi, was challenged in CUS. A.C. 2/2005 before the Delhi High Court and it was only when the matter was heard on 16-10-2006 and the question of territorial jurisdiction was raised and the Department withdrew the appeal with liberty to approach this Court. Even before the Delhi High Court, no permission was sought for return of the certified copy of the order filed along with the appeal. On receipt of the certified cop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r is mandatory and if an appeal is filed with attested copy, the same would be returned by the office of the High Court of Karnataka. A letter dated 16-1-2008 was received from the counsel requesting for the certified copy or at least an endorsement from the CESTAT, New Delhi explaining the reasons as to why they are not issuing the certified copy. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, a letter dated 18-1-2008 was once again sent to Registrar, CESTAT, New Delhi, forwarding the counsel's letter and requesting for furnishing of the certified copy of the order. On the same day, a letter was also addressed to Shri Vinod Kumar, CGC, New Delhi to take back the certified copy filed with the appeal before the High Court and send the same to the department. Since the office of the CESTAT, New Delhi did not issue the certified copy, the department-requested its counsel by letter dated 31-1-2008 to file the appeal along with an application for dispensation of production of certified copy. On that day, the counsel requested for furnishing all the dates and events with documents which are necessary for filing an interlocutory application for condonation of delay as well as for filing an interloc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pensation of production of the certified copy of the order and the appeal is filed only on 16-6-2008 with the attested copy of the order of CESTAT. 10. We find that, instead of obtaining the certified copy in the proper manner, the appellant went on writing letters to the Registrar of CESTAT for issuance of a certified copy of the order. There has been no follow up made by the Department's representative or the counsel to obtain the certified copy of the order. Be that as it may, the department has lost time in filing an appeal before this Court after the same was withdrawn before the Delhi High Court on 1640-2006 as the appeal could have been filed on the basis of a true copy of the order which was in any way available with the Department so as to reduce the delay which in any way caused by prosecuting the appeal before the Delhi High Court and subsequently could have sought for extension of time to produce the certified copy of the order of CESTAT by making an appropriate application. 11. In our view, the non-availability of the certified copy of the order of CESTAT is not a sufficient cause to condone the delay of 1280 days. Further, it is not a case where the appeal has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
