2016 (5) TMI 126 - HC - Customs

Condoantion of delay in filing an appeal - delay of 18 days - Period of limitation - Valuation of imported goods - Seeking direction to assess the payment of duty as per the Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - the petitioner has taken different avenues to challenge the Bill of Entry dated 01.05.2014. First he filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals-II, which was dismissed on the ground of limitation. Thereafter, this Court also confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals-II in the writ petition. Now, after the dismissal of the said writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the original Bill of Entry dated 01.05.2014. Hence, if the petitioner is allowed to challenge the Bill of Entry dated 01.05.2014, after the dismissal of the appeal and the writ petition, the matter will not reach finality. That apart, when a specific limitation has been prescribed under the Act, the petitioner should have filed an appeal within the stipulated time. Having failed to do so and having lost in the writ petition also, the prayer sought in the writ petition cannot be allowed. - Decided against the petitioner

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Bill of Entry dated 1.5.2014 on grounds of limitation and maintainability of writ petition.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to challenge the Bill of Entry dated 1.5.2014 and direct the assessment of duty as per the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the Bill of Entry was dismissed by the Commissioner of Appeals-II due to a delay of 18 days, which was beyond the statutory period. A previous writ petition to condone the delay was also dismissed by the Court. The present writ petition was filed after these dismissals, challenging the same Bill of Entry.

The petitioner argued that since the appeal dismissal did not result in a merger of orders, the current writ petition challenging the Bill of Entry is maintainable. However, the Court noted that the petitioner had already exhausted avenues to challenge the Bill of Entry, first through the appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals-II and then through the previous writ petition. The Court emphasized that allowing further challenges after previous dismissals would prevent finality in the matter. The Court highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory limitations for filing appeals and noted that since the petitioner had failed to do so and lost in the previous writ petition, the current prayer in the writ petition cannot be granted.

Consequently, the Court found the writ petition to be lacking in merits and dismissed it, along with the connected miscellaneous petition, without imposing any costs. The judgment underscores the significance of complying with statutory timelines for appeals and the need for finality in legal challenges to prevent repetitive litigation on the same issue.