2014 (9) TMI 102 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay - Demand of differential duty - Enhancement in value of goods - Rejection of transaction value - Copnfiscaton of goods - Redemption fine - Held that - What is required to the appellant is that justice needs to be done. No doubt, the law is important and the Commissioner has no power to condone the delay beyond the condonable period. Nevertheless, the fact remains that in this case, the covering letter which we reproduced above would show clearly that 2 sets of appeal papers filed by M/s Hotel Ashok and Sri Ashok G. Koti were enclosed and the same was acknowledged also. When the appeal was filed on behalf of the Managing Partner contesting the personal penalty of ₹ 10 lakhs imposed on him, it is difficult to believe that another appeal was not filed by the Hotel. In view of this matter, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have considered the appeal as having been filed on the date of receipt of the covering letter. In our opinion, in this case, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have heard the appeal and stay application filed by the appellants and taken a decision in accordance with law. Therefore, we set aside both the impugned orders and remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the stay application as well as the appeal in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellants. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Undervaluation of imported furniture and items
2. Rejection of declared transaction value
3. Confiscation of goods and imposition of fines and penalties
4. Dispute regarding filing of appeals within stipulated time period
5. Rejection of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) due to delay

Undervaluation of imported furniture and items:
The appellant, a Partnership firm, imported furniture and items under 5 Bills of Entry raised by a Chinese company. Proceedings were initiated due to undervaluation of the imported goods. The order-in-original rejected the declared transaction value, demanded differential duty, confiscated the goods, and imposed a redemption fine and penalties on the Hotel and its Managing Partner.

Dispute regarding filing of appeals within stipulated time period:
Two appeals were filed by the appellants, one on behalf of the Hotel and the other by the Managing Partner, within the stipulated time period. However, there was a dispute regarding the filing of both appeals, as only one appeal number was initially mentioned in the covering letter. Despite the Hotel's contention that they had filed an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appeal was not filed within the stipulated period.

Rejection of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) due to delay:
The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the Hotel on the grounds of delay beyond the condonable period. The Tribunal found that justice needed to be done in this case, emphasizing that the covering letter clearly indicated the filing of two sets of appeal papers. The Tribunal opined that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have considered the appeal as filed on the date of receipt of the covering letter. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellants.

This judgment highlights the importance of procedural compliance in filing appeals within the stipulated time period and the need for authorities to consider all relevant documents and circumstances before rejecting appeals based on technical grounds. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for a fresh decision underscores the principle of ensuring justice is served in legal proceedings.