' AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, J.---Learned counsel for the applicant submits that common questions have been proposed through above three Special Customs Reference Applications, hence requests that the same may be heard and disposed of through a common order/ judgment.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant department has proposed following identical questions, which according to learned counsel for the applicant, are questions of law arising from the impugned orders all dated 03.06.2014 passed by the Customs Appellate Tribunal, Bench-I, Karachi in Customs Appeals Nos. K-425/2013 and K-426/2013; ("i) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal erred in law to dismiss the appeal on point of limitation without ascertaining the actual date of receipt of the order by the applicant? ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal erred in law to dismiss the applicant's Appeal No,K-424/2013, on the point of limitation, despite the fact that the subject point was settled by the learned Appellate Tribunal by accepting the appeal for regular hearing?
2. Perusal of record highlights that the above said appeal was filed with delay of 123 days. The appellant has also filed an respondent importer from payment of Government's legitimate revenue on the point of limitation despite the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, in its judgment in the reported case of Messrs West Pakistan Tanks Terminal (Pvt.)
Limited v. Collector of Custom's (Appraisement) and others (2007 SCMR 1318)? iv) Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law and failed to appreciate that the "default surcharge" of Section 34 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 cannot be equated with the penalty imposed in terms of Section 33 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990? "
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Customs Appellate Tribunal was not justified to dismiss the departmental appeals on the technical grounds i,e, point of limitation, as according to learned counsel, reasonable explanation was given by the applicant department for delay in filing appeal as according to learned counsel, order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Karachi, was not served upon the applicant department, however, such plea has not been taken into consideration. It has been further contented by the learned counsel that instead of dismissing the appeal on technical ground of limitation, the Customs Appellate Tribunal could have decided the appeal on merits to secure the interest of revenue. Learned counsel for the applicant has also filed an statement dated 31.08.2016 along with copy of Memo. Of appeal and the application under section 194-A(5) of Customs Act, 1969 for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Karachi. It has been argued that the questions proposed hereinabove are questions of law, which may be answered in favour of the applicant. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has referred to the case of WAPDA v. Muhammad Khalid reported as 1991 SCM R 1765.
3. We have heard to the learned counsel for the applicant. Perused the record as well as the impugned orders passed by the Customs Appellate Tribunal in above references. Since identical orders have been passed in above three references, by the Appellate Tribunal, whereas, there is no dispute with regards to facts of three cases, therefore, to avoid duplication it will be advantageous to reproduce the common findings as recorded by the Appellate Tribunal in above three cases, which reads as follows: This appeal has been directed against Order-in-Appeals Nos.4006 to 4009/2010 dated 23.06.2010 passed by the learned Collector of Customs (Appeals), Karachi. ' application for condonation of delay. The contents of application for condonation of delay are reproduced as under:- "It is respectfully prayed on behalf of the applicant/appellant above named that for the reason disclosed in the memo. Of appeal, the Hon'ble authority is requested to consider sympathetically the factors/circumstances involved in the delay of filing of the appeal."
3. The appellant in the application of condonation of delay has neither mentioned the date of knowledge nor any ground which could be considered in favour of appellant. The applicant for condonation of delay was filed against the principles of law settled by the superior courts in relation to condonation of delay.
4. Since the application does not disclose any cogent reason for the condonation, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed and as a consequence the main appeal is also dismissed being time barred."
3. From perusal of hereinabove order passed by the Customs Appellate Tribunal, it appears that admittedly, the appeal was filed by delay of 123 days, in Custom Appeals Nos.524 and 525/2013, and delay of 180 days in Custom Appeal No,526/2013, whereas, applications under section 194-A(5) of Customs Act, 1969 were filed along with Memo of appeal, seeking condonation of delay in above three appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. It will be relevant to reproduce hereunder the contents of such application(s), to examine the contention of learned counsel for the applicant to the effect as to whether any reasonable explanation was offered while seeking condonation of delay:-- "CONDONATION APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 194-A(5) CUSTOMS ACT, 1969 ' It is respectfully prayed on behalf of the applicant/appellant above named that for the reason disclosed in the memo. Of appeal, the Hon'ble authority is requested to consider sympathetically the factors/circumstances involved in the delay of filing of the appeal.
' Prayer is made in the interest of justice."
' The contents of above application, seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal, clearly reflect that nowhere the applicant department has stated that the impugned order(s) passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) in the instant cases, were not served upon the applicant department, nor it discloses the date on which the applicant was infect served with such order(s) passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals). Moreover, the Said application is not even supported by an affidavit of the authorized officer of the applicant department through which true facts and the relevant dates relating to service of the order(s) of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) could be mentioned to calculate the delay in filing appeal(s). Such casual approach of the officers of the Customs Department in the instant case, reflects upon their non-serious attitude towards safeguarding in the interest of revenue, by filing appeals within prescribed period of limitation before the forum provided under the statute. We may further observe that delay of each day is to be explained while seeking condonation, whereas, different approach in this regard cannot be adopted to accommodate the departmental authorities to the disadvantage of taxpayers, as substantial right accrues to a litigant party in case of expiry of period of limitation as provided under the statute.
4. In view of hereinabove facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned orders passed by the Customs Appellate Tribunal while dismissing the above appeals of the applicant department on the point of limitation, as no reasonable explanation whatsoever, was given by the applicant department for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is not applicable at all to the facts of the instant cases, hence of no assistance to the applicant department. Accordingly, the instant Special Customs Reference Applications being devoid of any merits, are hereby dismissed in limine along with listed applications with cost of Rs,10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) to be deposited in the High Court Bar Library within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of the certified Copy of this order.