1983 (4) TMI 278 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeal before the Appellate Collector of Customs.
2. Dispute over refund of excess amount of CVD charged and collected.
3. Rejection of claim by Assistant Collector of Customs.
4. Condonation of delay in filing appeal and direction to decide on merits.

Analysis:

The case involved a revision petition filed by M/s. Stretchlon Private Limited against an Order in Appeal passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay. The petition was transferred to the Tribunal as an Appeal under Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant raised a grievance regarding the Collector of Customs (Appeal), Bombay's refusal to condone a 26-day delay in filing the appeal, citing valid reasons for the delay. The appellant requested condonation of the delay and a decision on the appeal's merits.

The appellant had imported a consignment of Polyester filament yarn and cleared it under Bond Bill of Entry. The Customs Authorities charged Countervailing Duty (CVD) based on denier discrepancies. The appellant cleared the consignment under protest and filed refund claims for the excess CVD charged. The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected one of the claims due to missing original documents, despite explanations provided by the appellant. The Appellate Collector later allowed the appeal for the rejected claim, directing a refund.

There was a delay in filing the appeal due to the Customs' delay in releasing the required documents for all claims. The Tribunal emphasized the need to believe a taxpayer's version if not inherently unbelievable. Considering the facts, the Tribunal reversed the Appellate Collector's order, condoned the delay, and directed a fresh decision on the appeal's merits, especially if the refund claim had already been accepted.

The Editor's Comments expressed disagreement with the Tribunal's decision to condone the delay, citing statutory time limits and precedents. The Editor suggested resolving the conflict on the applicability of the Limitation Act to Customs Act proceedings through a larger Bench decision. The Editor highlighted the differing views on condoning delays beyond statutory limits and the evolving provisions granting such powers to appellate authorities under new laws.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of considering a taxpayer's claims and directing a fresh decision on the appeal's merits after condoning the filing delay. The Editor's Comments highlighted the need for clarity on the application of the Limitation Act in Customs proceedings, suggesting a larger Bench decision to resolve conflicting views.