9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Appeal against dismissal of appeal as time-barred.
Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal that dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The appellant argued that the appeal was filed within the statutory 90-day limit as per Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant claimed that the delay in filing the appeal was due to receiving papers belatedly from the clearing house agent. 2. The Customs Act, 1962, under Section 128, allows for the condonation of delay up to 30 days after the initial 60-day period if sufficient cause is shown. The Commissioner (Appeals) has the authority to grant such extension upon satisfaction of valid reasons. The appellant contended that the delay should have been condoned, and the appeal should have been heard on merits. 3. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider the appellant's claim regarding the delayed receipt of papers in the proper perspective. As the appeal was filed within the extended period of 30 days after the initial 60 days, the delay should have been condoned, and the appeal should have been decided on its merits. 4. Considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, the Tribunal set aside the order dismissing the appeal and remitted the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh consideration. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the delay and pass an order on merits, emphasizing the importance of considering all relevant factors before dismissing an appeal as time-barred. 5. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a proper review, highlighting the necessity of a fair and thorough assessment of the reasons for delay in filing appeals to ensure justice and procedural fairness in the adjudication process.
|
