2012 (8) TMI 6 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - limitation alleged that appellant has not filed any appeal within the prescribed period of 60 days before the Commissioner (Appeals) - appellant has filed an appeal within the extended period of limitation of 30 days. The contention of the appellant (for condonation of delay) has not considered by the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the reason stated is not satisfactory - matter remand back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass an order on merits after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellants

Summary

Issues:
Application for early hearing based on the valuation of imported goods; Dismissal of appeal on the ground of limitation; Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals); Remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for passing an order on merits.

Analysis:
The appellant sought early hearing of the appeal due to the recurring nature of the issue concerning the valuation of imported goods. The Tribunal allowed the application for early hearing and proceeded to consider the merits of the case promptly.

The impugned order dismissed the appeal citing a limitation issue since the appellant failed to file the appeal within the prescribed 60-day period before the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the appellant did file an appeal within the extended period of 30 days. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider the appellant's contention for condonation of delay, deeming the reason provided as unsatisfactory.

Upon reviewing the appellant's submission, the Tribunal noted that the demand of duty was based on the assessment of a bill of entry dated 05/05/2009. The appellant had approached the adjudicating authority on 21/05/2009 for a speaking order to facilitate filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), but this request was not addressed promptly, leading to the delay in filing the appeal.

Considering the satisfactory reasons presented by the appellant, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Since the Commissioner (Appeals) had only dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation without assessing the merits, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision on the merits, ensuring the appellants are given a fair opportunity to present their case.

In conclusion, the appeal and stay application were disposed of in the manner described above, emphasizing the importance of addressing both procedural and substantive aspects of the case to ensure justice is served.