Clogging the courts – A favourite revenue pastime
The government usually fights a case not because there is a case but because there is an opportunity to fight and no individual cost. There should be some law that for every case the government loses in any appellate stage, they should pay a compensation of one lakh rupees to the other party. Any party fighting the government in the appellate forums would actually incur more in terms of hard cash, precious manhours lost and sheer mental agony.
Today we bring you a case where an appeal was filed after a delay of 667 days on an issue that had reached finality. An order of Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the party was accepted by the Jurisdictional Commissioner on 22-10-2002. The issue was cum duty price, already decided by the Supreme Court in the Maruti Udyog case. On 26-9-2003, Board vide Circular No. 749 had advised the field that the Maruti decision is not applicable to old cases and review petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court. So the Board wanted the field to pursue the old cases. It is in pursuance of this Board direction that the Bangalore Commissioner decided to file an appeal in the Tribunal after two years of the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). Incidentally while filing this appeal along with the application for condonation of delay the Commissioner was aware that the same Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal had dismissed departmental appeals on the same issue. But what can the poor Commissioner do when the Board and the Chief Commissioner directed him to file an appeal albeit after two years. Incidentally the Board had withdrawn Circular No. 749/03 by Circular No. 803/2004 dated 27-12-2004 as the government’s review petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court. However no effort has been made to withdraw this totally unwanted appeal and the application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal had to pass a lengthy order going through several case laws to finally hold that there is no sufficient cause shown for condonation of enormous delay in the matter. The latches and negligence are patent on record and so delay not condoned and as a result appeal also rejected.