9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 116 - AT - CustomsMaintainability - whether decision taken under Section 129D(3) of Customs Act, 1962 beyond a period of three months from the date of communication of decision or order of adjudicating authority is barred from seeking appeal remedy in terms of Section 129A(3) of the Act - Held that - Sub-section has prescribed that either adjudicating authority or any officer of Customs authorised in this behalf by the Commissioner of Customs may file an application before Tribunal within a month from the date of communication of the order by the Committee of Chief Commissioners to file appeal. According to the law, Revenue gets four months time to file appeal. The order sought to be appealed was communicated to the Commissioner of Customs on 4-6-2013. Revenue submitted that Review Committee reviewed the impugned order and signed the same on 29-11-2013. Thereafter Revenue filed appeal on 29-11-2013. According to the limitation prescribed, last date for filing appeal was 3-10-2013. Chronological event shows that Review Committee had not taken decision to seek appeal for nearly five months of communication of the order sought to be appealed. That handicaps Revenue to seek condonation of delay made in decision making under Section 129D(1) read with Section 129D(3) of the Act by the Committee. Without burdening the order further, in view of aforesaid chronology of events, appeal of Revenue calls for dismissal of its MA (COD), stay application and appeal - Decided against Revenue.
Issues involved: Interpretation of provisions under Section 129D(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding the time limit for filing appeals by Revenue, and the condonation of delays in decision-making.
Analysis: 1. The central issue in this appeal is whether the decision taken under Section 129D(3) of the Customs Act beyond three months from the communication of the order is permissible for seeking appeal remedy under Section 129A(3) of the Act. The Act allows an assessee to file an appeal within three months of the communication of the order, while Revenue can file an application to the Tribunal within a month from the date of communication of the order of the Committee of Chief Commissioners. The appeal by Revenue is governed by Section 129A of the Act, and the time limit for decision-making by the Committee of Chief Commissioners is crucial in seeking appeal remedy. The Tribunal has the power to consider condonation of delays in filing the appeal if there is a delay after the decision is communicated within the prescribed time limit. 2. The appellant contends that any delay in decision-making resulting in delayed filing of the appeal should be condonable by the Tribunal, regardless of the period allowed for decision by the Review Committee under Section 129D(3) of the Act. However, the respondent argues against this interpretation. 3. Section 129D(4) of the Act allows the adjudicating authority or any authorized Customs officer to file an application before the Tribunal within a month from the communication of the order by the Committee of Chief Commissioners for filing an appeal. In this case, the Revenue had four months to file the appeal, but due to delays in decision-making by the Review Committee, the appeal was filed after the prescribed time limit, leading to a contention regarding the condonation of the delay. 4. The chronological events presented in the case highlight that the Review Committee took nearly five months to make a decision regarding seeking an appeal after the communication of the order. This delay handicapped Revenue in seeking condonation of the delay in decision-making under Section 129D(1) read with Section 129D(3) of the Act by the Committee. 5. The appellant relies on the judgment in the case of Thakker Shipping P. Ltd. and a decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kap Cones to support their argument that the delay in this case should be condoned. However, the Tribunal found that the citation of the Thakker Shipping case was not entirely applicable to the current situation, leading to the dismissal of the appeal, stay application, and the MA (COD) of the Revenue. 6. In conclusion, based on the events and the legal provisions discussed, the Tribunal ruled to dismiss the appeal of the Revenue, including the MA (COD) and stay application, due to the delay in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit.
|
