2013 (7) TMI 218 - AT - Customs

Rejection of appeal as time barred - Held that - It noticed that the appellants have filed application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order dated 1.10.2009. It is admitted fact that the assessment order was communicated on 1.10.2009 and the appeal was filed on 25.10.2010. As decided in Singh Enterprises Vs. CCE 2008 (2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the condonable period of 30 days. Therefore reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection for differential duty amount.
2. Appeal filed against the wrong order.
3. Condonation of delay application.

Analysis:
1. The case involves the appellant importing coal and subsequently filing a refund claim for the differential duty amount due to a reduction in the goods' price post-clearance. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs rejected the refund claim, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the Bill of Entry. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that there was an error in challenging the assessment of the Bill of Entry and clarified that the appeal was actually against the rejection of the refund. The request was made to amend the appeal to reflect the correct order. However, the learned AR supported the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, emphasizing that the appeal was consciously filed against the Bill of Entry.

3. The Tribunal examined the submissions and noted that the appeal was indeed against the assessment order of the Bill of Entry, with a delay in filing the appeal. Referring to a Supreme Court case, it was established that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked the authority to condone delays beyond 30 days. Additionally, the Tribunal observed that the new prayer by the appellant's counsel was not presented before the Commissioner (Appeals).

4. Based on the arguments and evidence, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, stating that there were no grounds to intervene. Consequently, the appellant's appeal was rejected, affirming the original ruling.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of refund claim rejection, appeal against the wrong order, and the condonation of delay application, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI.