2003 (11) TMI 432 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
Delay in filing appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) - Condonation of delay - Refund claim under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 - Justifiability of grounds for late filing of appeal.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Delay in filing appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) - Condonation of delay
The appellants filed a Bill of Entry on 5-3-2002, paid duty without claiming exemption, and later realized the mistake. They paid the excess duty under protest on 8-3-2002, took delivery of goods on 12-3-2002, and filed a refund claim on 2-5-2002. Subsequently, they appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 5-6-2002, seeking condonation of a 29-day delay. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, citing no justifiable grounds for the delay. The appellants argued that their actions were bona fide, having pursued the matter with authorities promptly after importation and excess payment of duty. The Tribunal found no mala fide intention and considered the delay justified due to pursuing the matter with Customs Authorities before appealing. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, condoned the delay, and remanded the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits.

Issue 2: Refund claim under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962
The appellants, relying on a precedent (Mecon Limited v. C.C., Calcutta), contended that a refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, could be filed without challenging the assessment of the Bill of Entry. Despite the rejection of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Assistant Commissioner handling their refund claim had closed the file, prompting the appellants to appeal to CESTAT. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellants' efforts in pursuing the matter promptly after importation and excess duty payment, emphasizing their lack of mala fide intent. It held that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits, ultimately allowing the appeal by remand for further consideration.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the justifiability of the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the applicability of the refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The decision highlighted the appellants' genuine efforts in addressing the excess duty payment issue promptly and concluded that the delay was reasonable, warranting the condonation and remand for a substantive decision on the appeal's merits.