ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. The application seeks condonation of 53 days delay in filing this appeal. In this appeal the appellants seek refund of Rs. 60,327.60 paise paid as excess customs duty on account of exclusion of Foreign Supplier’s Trade Discount from the value of the imported goods. The reasons for the delay are explained as follows:
(a) The applicants are a large Public Sector Enterprise engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products with a marketing network spread all over India. The Integrated Steel Plants had been dealing with their legal matters themselves prior to 1.5.1978 when the Public Sector Iron and Steel Companies
(Restructuring) and Miscellancous Provisions Act, 1978 was passed, whereby the applicants became an Integral Company.
(b) After coming into effect of the above mentioned Act, it took some time for streamlining the procedure of legal matters as consultations with several Steel Plants and discussions with Government Agencies was required, the applicants being a Public Sector Company under the administrative control of the Ministry of Steel and Mines.
(c) The applicants’ marketing organisation had been entrusted with the centralised responsibility of transporting and shipping matters in respect of all Steel Plants and import clearances and payment of duty. The uncertainty in regard to filing of appeals against the assessments of customs duty took some time to be sorted out and it was only by order dated 14.7.1988 that the Corporate Law Department situated in New Delhi was entrusted with the responsibility of all appeals before the CEGAT.
(d) The Government of India had issued instructions on 19.12.1975 from time to time providing that Public Sector Enterprises should go in for litigations against the Governments.
(e) There was a period of transition when the position relating to filing of appeals before the Tribunal was not clear, particularly in respect of the Public Sector Enterprise. In order to ensure smooth transition from the earlier procedure of filing revision applications, Removal of Difficulties Order, 1982 was issued on 11.10.1982.
2. In the above circumstances the applicants submitted that there was no wilful or conscious delay on their part and, therefore, prayed that the delay be condoned. In support of their prayer the learned Counsel Shri D.N, Mehta cites a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. MST Katiji and Ors. and also the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Telephone Industries .
3. Opposing the application, the learned DR contends that the grounds set out in the application are not sufficient cause for condonation of delay and delay due to internal correspondence is not a ground for condonation. In support thereof he cites the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. reported in 1988 (38) ELT 739 (S.C.) : 1988 (19) ECR 569 (SC) : ECR C 1269 SC : ECR C Cus 1411 SC.
4. We have considered the submissions of both sides. The delay is patently attributable to administrative reasons. Uncertainty in the minds of officers of the appellant Company as to whether Public Sector Undertakings should carry on litigation cannot be said to justify condonation. The Government of India Office Memorandum of 19.12.1975 also cannot be pressed into service, as the position regarding inter-Government Department litigation could not have remained unresolved till 1984 when this appeal was preferred. Further, the transition period at the lime of establishment of the Tribunal was over much prior to 1984. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. MST Katiji (supra) does not advance the appellants’ case in the present circumstances, as the appellants appear to have been guilty of negligence and have displayed a very casual attitude towards pursuit of the matter. In the case of Union of India v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dismissing the COD application observed, in para 4 of the judgment, that “we are aware of the fact that the Government being impersonal takes a longer time than the private bodies or individuals. Even giving that latitude, there must be some way or attempt to explain the cause for such delay”. The facts of this case are also similar to the facts of the Tata Yodogawa case.
5. The Tribunal has already taken a similar view in the case of Collector of Customs v. Ajanta Tubes Ltd. . In view of the judicial pronouncements and earlier orders of this Tribunal, we hold that sufficient cause has not been shown for condoning delay. We, therefore, reject the application for condonation of delay. Consequently the appeal is also dismissed as time-barred.
