2003 (11) TMI 388 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, conflicting judgments on levy of Special Additional Duty (SAD), exemption under Notifications

Delay in filing appeal:
The judgment addresses a delay of 45 days in filing an appeal. The appellant cited conflicting judgments of the Tribunal on the issue of levy of Special Additional Duty (SAD) on imported goods of Nepalese origin as the reason for the delay. However, the Tribunal found this reason insufficient to condone the delay. The Commissioner (Appeals) had already decided the matter by referring to specific notifications exempting the goods from Basic Customs Duty. The Tribunal emphasized that the differing views in previous cases did not prevent the Department from appealing the current case. The impugned order favored the assessee by granting exemption under Notification No. 76/86-Cus. The Tribunal concluded that no confusion existed regarding the levy of SAD, and the delay in filing the appeal was unjustified. The COD application lacked support from an affidavit explaining the cause for the delay, leading to the dismissal of the COD application and the appeal as time-barred.

Conflicting judgments on levy of Special Additional Duty (SAD):
The Tribunal highlighted the varying opinions in previous cases regarding the levy of SAD on imported goods of Nepalese origin. Despite these conflicting judgments, the Department was expected to appeal the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) favoring the assessee based on specific exemption notifications. The Tribunal clarified that the differing views did not justify the delay in filing the appeal, as the impugned order was based on the exemption under Notification No. 76/86-Cus. The Tribunal emphasized that the confusion alleged by the Department due to divergent Tribunal views did not hold, as the impuged order was in favor of the assessee based on the specific exemption notification.

Exemption under Notifications:
The Tribunal discussed the exemption granted under Notification No. 76/86-Cus to the imported goods (Katha) of Nepalese origin, which exempted them from the whole of the excise duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) had ruled in favor of the assessee by extending the benefit of this exemption. The Tribunal emphasized that the impugned order was based on this specific exemption notification and not on conflicting Tribunal judgments regarding the levy of SAD. This exemption was a crucial factor in the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the COD application and the appeal due to being time-barred.