9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Condonation of delay in filing appeal against order confirming duty and penalty, applicability of exemption notification, jurisdiction to correct clerical or arithmetical mistake u/s 154 of Customs Act.
Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal: The appeal sought condonation of a 4 1/2-year delay in challenging an order confirming duty and penalty imposed by the Commissioner. The appellant claimed they were under a bona fide belief that duty payment was not required as they did not redeem confiscated goods. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant allowed the order to attain finality by not appealing within the prescribed period. The Tribunal emphasized that even if the appellant believed the order was incorrect, they were obligated to challenge it through the proper appellate channels. The delay was not justified, and the appeal was dismissed. Applicability of Exemption Notification: The appellant contended that the duty calculation was incorrect as they were not granted the benefit of certain exemption notifications. They argued that the duty amount should be reduced based on these notifications. However, the Assistant Commissioner maintained that the duty was correctly quantified and that the appellant forfeited their right to appeal by not challenging the initial order in a timely manner. The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 154 of the Customs Act, allowing correction of clerical errors, did not apply in this case as the issue was not a simple arithmetical mistake but required judicial consideration. The appellant's claim for exemption benefits was deemed invalid due to lack of timely appeal against the original order. Jurisdiction to Correct Clerical or Arithmetical Mistake u/s 154: The appellant argued that the Commissioner should have considered their application under Section 154 of the Customs Act to correct the alleged clerical or arithmetical mistake in the duty calculation. However, the Tribunal clarified that Section 154 only allows for rectification of arithmetical errors and not for substantive issues like the applicability of exemption notifications. Since the appellant did not raise this claim during adjudication or file an appeal against the original order, the Tribunal concluded that Section 154 was not applicable in this scenario.
|
