Commissioner Of Customs & Central Excise Nagpur -I, Commissi vs. Fabworth (I) LTD. (Now Known As M/S. Uniworth Textiles LTD)

Facts

The appellant, Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise Nagpur-I, filed an appeal against an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, which had allowed an appeal filed by the respondent, Fabworth (I) Ltd. (now M/s. Uniworth Textiles Ltd.). The original order in dispute was passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur, confirming a demand of Central Excise Duty and imposing a penalty of Rs. 5 crores on the respondent's Nagpur and Raipur units. The respondent had filed an appeal before CESTAT, Kolkata, which was allowed on March 23, 2007. The appellant filed the present appeal before the Calcutta High Court on April 3, 2018, with a delay of 3731 days, along with a delay condonation application. The respondent's registered office is in Kolkata, while its units are in Raipur and Nagpur. This Court had previously settled the issue of territorial jurisdiction of CEGAT, Kolkata, in favor of the assessee in a prior case involving the same respondent.

Held

The Court held that the delay condonation application must be rejected. The primary reason for this decision was the appellant's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of 3731 days. The Court noted that the issue of territorial jurisdiction of CEGAT, Kolkata, had been settled inter partes by this Court in a prior judgment concerning the same respondent, Uniworth Textiles Ltd. The appellant was aware of this judgment and had even withdrawn an appeal filed before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court based on it. Therefore, the explanation for the delay during the period the appeal was pending before the Nagpur Bench was considered mis-conceived. Furthermore, the Court found the explanations for the delay after withdrawing the Nagpur appeal to be insufficient and unsubstantiated, describing some as a 'cooked up story'. Consequently, the delay condonation application was rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and any pending applications.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 3731 days in filing the appeal can be condoned, considering the appellant's explanation for the delay. This issue turns on the principles of condonation of delay under the relevant procedural provisions governing appeals to the High Court. Petitioner's arguments: The appellant argued that the delay was attributable to various factors, including the pendency of a withdrawn appeal before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court and subsequent delays in instructing counsel for filing the present appeal. Revenue's arguments: The revenue contended that the appellant had failed to provide sufficient and cogent reasons to explain the inordinate delay. They argued that the question of territorial jurisdiction was already settled by this Court in a prior judgment concerning the same respondent, and the appellant was aware of this. The explanations provided for the delay, particularly for the period after withdrawing the appeal at Nagpur, were deemed insufficient and unsubstantiated.