2016 (1) TMI 1109 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal against the Bill of Entry or assessment order - Held that - On perusal of copy of note sheet file which is marked as AC(EDI)/DC (EDI)/DC(Gr.7) on 20.2.2007, we find that appellant cannot agitate that this an order and this was not issued to the appellant. Therefore appeal is filed against Bill of Entry and not against any letter or order issued by the AC. - Commissioner (Appeals) has no powers to condone delay beyond condonable period. - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues: Time-barred appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) dismissal

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI involved a case where the short issue was the dismissal of an appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of being time-barred. The appellant had filed a Bill of Entry on 26.8.2006 for the import of natural rubber, with part of the goods cleared duty-free and part on payment of customs duty. The appeal was filed on 3.4.2007, which was beyond the condonable period set by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant argued that the appeal was against the rejection of reassessment by the department, not the Bill of Entry. However, upon examining the note sheet file, it was determined that the appeal was indeed against the Bill of Entry and not any specific order issued by the department. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not have the authority to condone delays beyond the condonable period, citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs CCE Jamshedpur 2008 (221) ELT 163 (SC). Consequently, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal was rejected.

This judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to statutory timelines in filing appeals and the limitations on the power of authorities to condone delays beyond the prescribed period. The distinction between the subject matter of the appeal and the grounds for appeal is crucial, as evidenced by the Tribunal's analysis of the note sheet file to determine the nature of the appellant's challenge. The reference to the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court underscores the reliance on established legal principles to guide decisions in similar cases. Overall, the judgment emphasizes the need for precision and compliance with procedural requirements in matters of appeal before the appellate authorities in customs and excise cases.