9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Demand of differential duty on goods imported by deceased individual. 2. Dismissal of appeals as time-barred due to delay in filing. 3. Query on the devolvement of duty liability on legal heirs of deceased assessee under the Central Excise Act. Analysis: 1. The judgment revolves around the demand for a differential duty on goods imported and cleared by a deceased individual, represented by his son after his demise. The lower authorities had finalized the assessments and demanded the duty, which was later appealed against by the son but dismissed as time-barred. The present appeals and applications sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery concerning the duty amounts. The appellant claimed that the appeals were filed within time based on the actual date of receipt of the Orders-in-Original, challenging the dismissal as time-barred under Section 128 of the Customs Act. The appellant also presented a prima facie case against the duty demand, referencing a previous order by the Bench in a similar matter. The Tribunal heard arguments from both sides and reserved judgment pending feedback from the Commissionerate. 2. The Tribunal addressed the issue of the dismissal of appeals as time-barred due to a delay in filing beyond the condonable period under Section 128 of the Customs Act. The appellant contended that the appeals were filed within time based on the actual receipt date of the Orders-in-Original. The Tribunal considered the grounds of the appeals challenging the finding by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the provisions of Section 153 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal noted that certain arguments presented by the appellant were not raised before the Commissioner (Appeals). The matter was further discussed, and the Tribunal scheduled a final hearing for the appeals. 3. During the proceedings, the Tribunal raised a query regarding the devolvement of duty liability on the legal heirs of a deceased individual under the Central Excise Act. The query remained unanswered by both sides, prompting a response from a senior Advocate acting as amicus curie. The amicus curie opined that the tax liability in such circumstances would not survive. The Tribunal decided to give both sides an opportunity to address this fundamental question. However, for the present purpose, the Tribunal accepted the opinion of the amicus curie, leading to the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery concerning the duty amounts. The appeals were scheduled for final hearing on a specific date.
|
