Delhi HC refuses to Condone Delay in Filing Second Appeal before CESTAT due to Negligence of Assessee in Tracking Order [Read Order]

The Delhi High Court has refused to condone the delay in submitting a second appeal, stating that the assessee was negligent in following the order and that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not at fault.

Read More:  CENVAT credit to ‘interior decorator service’ is not admissible as eligible input service: CESTAT rules in Capgemini Technology Services case

The appellant, M/s Techmax Electronics, appealed the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's (CESTAT) ruling that the delay in filing the second appeal was not acceptable.  In order to import specific brass ceramic cartridges from China, the appellant had submitted a Bill of Entry. An accusation of misrepresentation was made, and it was claimed that the goods' worth was incorrect. A differential duty of Rs. 2,71,201 was determined and verified by the Department. Additionally, the OIO assessed a penalty of Rs. 2,71,201 and a redemption fine of Rs. 30,000. The appellant paid the difference duty and penalty to clear the goods and avoid demurrage and detention charges.

Read More:  GST Rule Change from April 1, 2025: ISD Mandatory for Claiming Input Tax Credit

The Appellant then appealed the order to the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant had moved its headquarters to a nearby structure in the same neighborhood. However, it is claimed that on October 21, 2018, a fire disaster happened at the relocated premises. As a result, the appellant moved its operations once more, this time to a new location that is still used as its office space. However, the company is currently listed as non-operational.

CLUB YOUR INCOME - Because Who Said Money Can’t Hang Out Together?

Regarding the appeal proceedings, the Respondent-Department was not informed that the first shift in the office premises was impacted by the GST registration. Following this, the appellant (at their previous office) and the appellant's counsel received a personal hearing notice dated January 8, 2020.  Although the counsel was present for the hearing on January 16, 2020, neither the client nor the Department were informed of the change in address.

The order was issued by the Commissioner (Appeals). The order issued by the Commissioner (Appeals) on June 1, 2020, was never notified to the appellant.

Read More: BCI Cannot Deny Enrolment Without Legal Basis: Delhi HC Orders to Enrol South Korean National as Advocate

According to the court, the Department followed the procedure and completed its due diligence since it had no other choice. The Department is not liable as the Appellant did not give a different address and the Counsel did not notify the Appellant.

Know the complete aspects of tax implications of succession, Click here

The two member panel of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be held accountable for sending the ruling to the appellant's previous address.  The appellant's lack of promptness is evident in the fact that it has not bothered to confirm if the Commissioner (Appeals) issued any orders in the appeal that was preferred at its request.  Additionally, the appellant was responsible for seeing if any orders had been issued in the appeal.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates