2017 (12) TMI 1632 - AT - Customs

Appeal dismissed on the ground of time bar - assessments of Bills of Entry were done prior to 1-12-2009 and the appeals were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) only on 10-3-2010 - Held that - All the six Bills of Entry were assessed and communicated to the appellant on various dates which were prior to 1-12-2009 and the appeals were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 10-3-2010 only. This is much beyond the time-limit prescribed under the Act for filing appeals before the lower appellate authority - the request to issue a speaking order has been given to the department which is dated 22-3-2010. This letter is after filing the appeal before the lower appellate authority. It can be reasonably inferred that such letter was given as afterthought to circumvent the delay in filing the appeal. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order dismissed as time-barred.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed them on the ground of being time-barred. The appellants had filed six Bills of Entry for clearance of imported silk fabrics, claiming the benefit of Notification No. 30/2004. However, the appeals were dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to being filed beyond the condonable period of limitation.

The appellant's counsel argued that they had requested the Assistant Commissioner of Customs to issue a speaking order for the purpose of filing an appeal, but no such order was issued. On the other hand, the respondent's representative contended that the assessments of Bills of Entry were done before 1-12-2009, and the appeals were filed on 10-3-2010, with the request for a speaking order made on 22-3-2010. The respondent argued that the appeals were rightly dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as time-barred.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found merit in the arguments put forward by the respondent's representative. It was noted that all six Bills of Entry were assessed and communicated to the appellant before 1-12-2009, while the appeals were filed on 10-3-2010, well beyond the prescribed time-limit for filing appeals. The request for a speaking order was made after filing the appeal, leading the Tribunal to infer that it was an afterthought to circumvent the delay. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeals, finding no grounds to interfere with the decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the dismissal of the appeals as time-barred, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the statutory time limits for filing appeals before the lower appellate authority. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough review of the facts and arguments presented by both parties, ultimately upholding the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).