2018 (1) TMI 575 - HC - Customs

Time limitation - Section 128 the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - In view of the error is apparent on the face of the record, it is appropriate to direct the Appellate Tribunal to reconsider the matter in the light of Section 85(3A) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 - matter is remitted to the Appellate Tribunal for reconsideration is accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the final order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal based on limitation under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 versus Section 85(3A) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to petitions challenging the final order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal of the petitioners as being barred by limitation. The Appellate Tribunal affirmed the order of the first appellate Authority dated 30.07.2014. The petitioners contended that the Tribunal's consideration on the aspect of limitation under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 was erroneous. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the Tribunal's consideration under Section 128 was incorrect and that the aspect of limitation should have been assessed in accordance with Section 85(3A) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. They highlighted that a statutory appeal was available against the impugned order.

The Court, after hearing both parties and examining the records, found that an error was apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 03.01.2017 and remitted the matter back to the Appellate Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Court directed the Appellate Tribunal to expedite the reconsideration process. Importantly, all contentions of both parties were kept open, ensuring that the parties could present their arguments afresh during the reconsideration. Ultimately, the writ petitions were disposed of, bringing an end to the legal proceedings surrounding the issue of limitation in the appeal process before the Appellate Tribunal.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the significance of correctly applying the relevant statutory provisions governing the limitation period in appeals. The Court's intervention was based on the error in the Tribunal's consideration of the applicable law. By setting aside the impugned order and directing a fresh consideration in line with the appropriate legal provisions, the Court ensured a fair and lawful resolution of the dispute.