2018 (12) TMI 1632 - AT - Customs

Mis-interpretation of case law - power of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay - Held that - The Revenue has misinterpreted the ratio of Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in Thakker Shipping P. Ltd. 2012 (11) TMI 39 - SUPREME COURT . The said judgment relates to powers of condonation of delay of appeals filed before the Tribunal - To extrapolate that ratio of the judgement to condonation of delay or otherwise by Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct in law. In the circumstances, no merit is found in the appeals filed by the Revenue on this score - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Revenue's appeal against rejection of refund claims for Additional Duty of Customs, interpretation of powers of condonation of delay by Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue 1: Revenue's appeal against rejection of refund claims
The appeals were filed by Revenue challenging the rejection of refund claims for 4% Additional Duty of Customs. The lower appellate authority had rejected the department's appeals without delving into the merits of the case. The grounds for appeal included discrepancies between the imported goods and the goods sold. However, the lower appellate authority dismissed the appeals on procedural grounds related to the timing of review orders and appeals under Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue 2: Interpretation of powers of condonation of delay by Commissioner (Appeals)
The Revenue contended that appeals filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962 should be treated as appeals under Chapter XV, allowing for the application of provisions including condonation of delay. Reference was made to a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the Tribunal's power to condone delay under Section 129D(4). However, the Tribunal found that the Revenue misinterpreted the Supreme Court judgment, clarifying that it pertained to the Tribunal's powers and not to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) had identified non-condonable delays in each case, which the department did not dispute.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's appeals lacked merit as they misinterpreted the Supreme Court judgment and failed to address the non-condonable delays highlighted by the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the appeals by Revenue were dismissed, and the cross objections filed by the respondents were also disposed of accordingly.