9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Appeal against rejection based on delay in filing, eligibility for project import benefit, discrepancy in the date of receipt of adjudication order, requirement of reconciliation statement for benefit, need for re-consideration by lower authority.
Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the rejection by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to delay. The Commissioner based the rejection on the belief that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act. The appellant argued that the adjudication order was actually received later than the date it was issued. The delay in filing the appeal was only 24 days, which the Commissioner had the authority to condone. The Tribunal found it incorrect for the Commissioner to assume the order was served on the same day as issued without any supporting evidence, leading to the conclusion that the appeal was time-barred. 2. The main issue in dispute was the eligibility of the appellant for project import benefit. Initially, the benefit was granted, but later denied during adjudication due to the appellant's failure to provide a reconciliation statement. The appellant later submitted the reconciliation statement, which was the missing requirement for claiming the benefit. The Tribunal acknowledged this submission and considered it a crucial factor in the case. 3. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal decided that the case needed to be re-evaluated by the lower authority on its merits. To facilitate this re-consideration, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal by way of remand. This decision was made to ensure a fair assessment of the appellant's eligibility for the project import benefit based on the new information provided in the reconciliation statement.
|
