9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Delay in filing appeals before lower appellate authority beyond statutory period under Section 128 of the Customs Act. Consideration of delay condonation applications. Bona fide belief regarding challenging assessments of Bills of Entry through refund claims. Interpretation of Supreme Court judgment in Collector v. MST Katiji's case. Applicability of Board's Circular dated 18-3-2004. Remand for fresh consideration of delay condonation applications by lower appellate authority. The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai involved applications seeking early disposal of appeals against a common order dismissing the assessee's appeals as time-barred due to delays ranging from 7 to 24 days beyond the statutory period of 60 days under Section 128 of the Customs Act. The appellants argued that the delay was unintentional and relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector v. MST Katiji's case to emphasize a liberal approach in dealing with delay condonation applications. They claimed a bona fide belief that assessments of Bills of Entry could be challenged through refund claims, which was realized only after noticing the Board's Circular No. 24/2004. The learned Joint Commissioner of Customs opposed the assessee's plea regarding the bona fide belief, asserting that the party should have been aware of the apex court's ruling that Customs duty refund could not be claimed without challenging the assessment through appeal. The applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in MST Katiji's case to the Customs Act was questioned, and it was argued that the Board's Circular dated 18-3-2004 was meant for guiding field formations, not assessees. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal observed that the lower appellate authority did not properly address the assessee's plea that refund claims were filed based on erroneous assessments of Bills of Entry. The Tribunal noted that if the appellants had indeed challenged the assessments through refund claims, their belief could be considered bona fide, warranting a reevaluation of the delay condonation applications. Consequently, the cases were remanded for fresh consideration by the lower appellate authority. Regarding the Board's Circular dated 18-3-2004, it was highlighted that the assessee's reliance on it was not sufficient, as the circular clarified that refund claims could not be maintained without challenging the assessment through appeal. Despite this setback to the plea of bona fide belief, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of examining whether refund claims were actually filed under such belief. In conclusion, the impugned order was set aside, and the Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to reconsider the delay condonation applications on their merits, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice. The appeals were allowed by way of remand for further proceedings. ---
|
