9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. 2. Stay of operation of the impugned order. The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI, involved two applications by the Revenue (appellant) - one for condonation of delay of the appeal and the other for a stay of operation of the impugned order. The impugned order was received by the Commissioner of Customs on 31-10-2007, and the appeal was filed on 8-4-2008, with a delay of 70 days. The period of limitation prescribed for an appeal to the Tribunal under Section 129A of the Customs Act is three months from the date of communication of the order. The order requires review by a Committee of Commissioners if challenged by the department. In this case, the Committee reviewed the order on 4-4-2008, and the appeal was filed on 8-4-2008. However, the delay in filing the appeal was solely attributed to the Committee of Commissioners, with no explanation provided for the delay. The Tribunal emphasized that the entire delay on the part of the Committee needed to be explained, and as no satisfactory explanation was given, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as well. The judgment highlighted the importance of complying with the prescribed timelines for filing appeals before the Appellate Tribunal under the Customs Act. It underscored the significance of the review process by the Committee of Commissioners when challenging orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the subsequent requirement for the proper officer to appeal on behalf of the Committee to the Tribunal. The Tribunal emphasized that any delays in the appeal process, especially those caused by the Committee of Commissioners, needed to be adequately explained to warrant condonation. In this case, the failure of the Committee to provide a valid reason for the delay led to the dismissal of the application for condonation and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal itself. The judgment elucidated the procedural requirements under Section 129A of the Customs Act, particularly regarding the review process by the Committee of Commissioners and the subsequent filing of appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. It reiterated that the onus was on the appellant, in this case, the Committee of Commissioners, to provide a satisfactory explanation for any delays in the appeal process. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the application for condonation and the appeal itself underscored the importance of adherence to procedural timelines and the necessity of providing justifiable reasons for any delays in the legal proceedings before the Tribunal.
|
