2016 (7) TMI 225 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay in filing an appeal - Tribunal rejected the condonation application since the requirement of mandatory deposit u/s 129E of Customs Act, 1962 was not met - Held that - After amendment to Section 129E of Customs Act, 1962, it is necessarly to be complied with by every person filing the appeal before this forum under Section 129A of Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the Appellant should first comply with the provisions of Section 129E of Customs Act,1962 and thereafter approach this Tribunal for condonation of delay, which the Tribunal is empowered to consider in view of Section 129A(5) of Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the present miscellaneous application is premature, accordingly rejected being not maintainable with the liberty to the applicant to approach this Tribunal after compliance with the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act,1962. - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 129E of Customs Act, 1962; Sequence of hearing COD application and compliance with Section 129E.

In the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD, the issue at hand was the condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The Appellant sought condonation of a 1091-day delay in filing the appeal, arguing that the Tribunal cannot dismiss their appeal for failure to deposit the requisite amount under the amended Section 129E. The Appellant's Advocate cited the case of Ranjit Impex Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner & Another to support their contention. On the other hand, the Revenue's Authorized Representative argued that the question was not about entertaining the appeal but about the sequence of hearing the COD application and complying with Section 129E. The Revenue contended that compliance with the amended provisions of Section 129E was necessary before the COD application could be heard, stating that the circumstances in the cited Supreme Court judgment were different from the present case.

The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's contention, emphasizing that post-amendment to Section 129E of the Customs Act, compliance with this section was mandatory for anyone filing an appeal under Section 129A. The Tribunal ruled that the Appellant must first comply with the provisions of Section 129E before seeking condonation of delay, as empowered by Section 129A(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed the present miscellaneous application premature and rejected it, granting the applicant the liberty to approach the Tribunal after complying with Section 129E.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD disposed of the Miscellaneous Application, highlighting the importance of complying with Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 before seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 129A. The judgment underscored the mandatory nature of compliance with Section 129E post-amendment, outlining the sequence of actions to be followed by appellants in such cases.