2022 (1) TMI 1332 - HC - Customs

Classification of goods - Fire TV sticks - Benefit of Serial No. 20 of Notification No. 57/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017 - applicability of time limitation - Section 28KA of the Customs Act - HELD THAT - Section 28KA of the Customs Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 2018, to provide an appeal in respect of any ruling. The Customs Act is a special Act and Chapter-VB of the Customs Act, which contains provisions relating to advance rulings, provides a special scheme for the stated purpose. The time for appealing any order/ruling made by the CAAR was restricted to a period of sixty days from the communication of the ruling or order. However, the court can extend the same by a further period of thirty days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the stipulated period of sixty days - The period of limitation, as prescribed under Section 28KA of the Customs Act, is not the period as prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963. Thus, in terms of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, the provisions of Section 4 to 24 of the said Act shall apply only to the extent not expressly excluded by such special law. The proviso to Section 28KA(1) of the Customs Act empowers the High Court to extend the period for filing an appeal by a further period of thirty days, subject to the condition that the court is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the specified period of sixty days. It is clear from the plain language that the court s power to extend time is restricted to a period of thirty days. It would have no power to extend the time for filing the appeal beyond the said period even if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the said appeal within the stipulated period - It is also well settled that the right to appeal is not an inherent right but one conferred by a statute. It follows that the statute may restrict or truncate the said right. In the present case, this appeal was filed on 14.07.2022. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the impugned ruling was communicated to the concerned appellant on 22.03.2022. He states that although the copy of the ruling was received by the concerned Commissionerate in Mumbai on 09.12.2021, it was received by the Commissionerate in Delhi much later on 22.03.2022. He states that the Commissionerate of Delhi was also a party to the application filed by the respondent; therefore, for the purpose of limitation, the date of receipt of the impugned ruling must be reckoned as 22.03.2022. Thus, it is apparent that even if the appellant s contention is accepted that the date of communication of the impugned ruling is 22.03.2022 and not 09.12.2021, the present appeal is beyond the period of ninety days from the said date. It was also feebly suggested by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the month of June be excluded from the period of limitation since, the period of thirty days, beyond the stipulated period of sixty days for filing the appeal, expired on 20.06.2022. At the material time, this Court was closed for vacations. The said contention is ex facie erroneous. The period, which can be extended in terms of the proviso to Section 28KA(1) of the Customs Act, cannot exceed thirty days. The appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 28KA of the Customs Act against an order by the Customs Authority for Advance Ruling.
2. Barred appeal due to delay beyond the stipulated period.
3. Interpretation of Section 28KA and proviso regarding the time limit for filing an appeal.
4. Legislative intent for time-bound mechanism for advance rulings.
5. Application of Limitation Act provisions to the Customs Act.
6. Judicial precedent on the exclusion of Limitation Act provisions in special laws.
7. Jurisdiction of the court to extend the time for filing an appeal.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal under Section 28KA of the Customs Act challenging an order by the Customs Authority for Advance Ruling (CAAR) dated 08.12.2021. The appeal sought to set aside the ruling conferring notification benefit to Fire TV sticks under Notification No. 57/2017-Customs.

2. The respondent contended that they did not avail of the benefits under the said notification and that the appeal was time-barred. The limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 28KA is sixty days from the communication of the ruling, extendable by thirty days for sufficient cause.

3. The court emphasized that the power to extend the time for filing an appeal is limited to thirty days beyond the initial sixty-day period, as per the proviso to Section 28KA. This restriction reflects the legislative intent for a time-bound mechanism for advance rulings under the Customs Act.

4. The introduction of Section 28KA by the Finance Act, 2018 aimed to provide a specific appeal mechanism for rulings under the Customs Act, emphasizing a time-bound process. The CAAR was established for advance rulings to ensure certainty in customs-related matters.

5. The court clarified that the limitation period under Section 28KA is distinct from the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court's jurisdiction to extend the time for filing an appeal is governed by the Customs Act's specific provisions.

6. Citing judicial precedents, the court reiterated that the right to appeal is statutory and can be restricted by the relevant law. The nature and scheme of the special law, in this case, the Customs Act, determine the applicability of general provisions like those in the Limitation Act.

7. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation, as it was filed beyond the stipulated period of ninety days from the date of communication of the ruling. The court held that even exceptional circumstances, such as court vacations, cannot extend the time for filing an appeal beyond the statutory limit set by the Customs Act.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, statutory provisions, legislative intent, and judicial interpretations involved in the case before the Delhi High Court.