2016 (12) TMI 1027 - AT - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - Time limitation - Held that - We find that fact is not under dispute that order-in-original against which the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) was passed on 15.12.1995 - The submission of the Ld. Counsel that the order is not signed does not hold water for the reason that it is attested copy issued by the department wherein it is clearly mentioned that it is copy of the signed order, secondly if there is dispute impugned order that cannot be raised for dealing with the time in filing appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals). As regard the submission being Government factory there should not be levy of duty is subject matter of the merit of the case, which cannot be raised when the appeal itself is not maintainable being time bar before the Commissioner(Appeals) - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals).
2. Validity of the order-in-original and attested copy.
3. Dispute regarding the signing of the order.
4. Applicability of levy of duty on a Government factory.
5. Power of the Commissioner(Appeals) to condone delay in filing appeal.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Appeal where the Commissioner(Appeals) rejected it due to a delay in filing. The original order was dated 15.12.1995, and the appeal was filed on 2/8/2004, resulting in a delay of around four years from the date of issue of the attested copy of the order.

2. The appellant argued that the attested copy of the order was not signed by the Asstt. Commissioner, making it not appealable. However, the Tribunal found that the attested copy clearly indicated it was a copy of the signed order, and the signing of the order was a procedural matter not affecting the appeal's timeliness.

3. The Revenue contended that the attested copy was issued to the appellant on 22/8/2000 after the original order was passed on 15.12.1995. They emphasized that the appeal filed in 2004 was time-barred, and the Commissioner(Appeals) had no authority to condone the delay beyond the prescribed time limit.

4. The appellant also raised the argument that being a Government factory under the Ministry of Defence, the levy of duty was not applicable. However, the Tribunal clarified that the issue of duty levy was a matter of the case's merit and could not be raised when the appeal itself was not maintainable due to being time-barred.

5. After considering both sides' submissions and examining the records, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner(Appeals)'s decision, stating that there was no merit in the appeal. The order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) was deemed legal and proper, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Commissioner(Appeals) regarding the time-barred appeal and the validity of the attested copy, dismissing the appellant's appeal based on the delay in filing and the lack of merit in the arguments presented.