2017 (1) TMI 1469 - AT - Customs

Rejection of Settlement Commission Application - time limitation - Held that - We find no difference with the recorded order and the averment of the Ld. D.R - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Appeal for reduction of litigation, rejection by Settlement Commission, appeal to Commissioner (Appeals), limitation period

In the present case before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI, the appellant failed to appear during the proceedings, leading to the matter being adjourned multiple times. The appellant's request for additional time to submit documents through a new advocate was deemed an abuse of process, and the application was rejected. The Tribunal proceeded with the appeal based on the existing record, as the appellant had sufficient time to prepare for the defense.

The Legal Draftsman representing the respondent pointed out that the appellant had bypassed the appellate Commissioner and directly approached the Settlement Commission in an attempt to reduce litigation. However, the Settlement Commission dismissed the application citing the absence of prior proceedings before the proper officer. Subsequently, after a delay of 286 days, the appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who noted that the appeal was time-barred. The Tribunal concurred with the Legal Draftsman's submission, finding alignment between the appellate order and the arguments presented. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal, emphasizing the importance of following the appropriate legal procedures and timelines in seeking relief from litigation. The case serves as a reminder of the significance of adhering to established legal processes and engaging with the relevant authorities in a timely manner to address legal disputes effectively.