9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 1475 - AT - CustomsCondonation of delay in filing appeal - appellant submits that the then Council was under the impression that the appeal before the Commissioner can be filed within a period of 90 days - Held that - Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises V/s CCE, Jamshedpur 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA observed that 60 days is the time to file the appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) has the power to condone the delay up to the further period of 30 days on sufficient cause being shown - In the instant case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not exercised this power though the sufficient cause for delay was shown by the appellant. The assessee should not suffer for the wrong advice /presumption of the council. Matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeal) to decide the issue on merit without raising the issue of limitation.
Issues: Appeal against time-barred order-in-appeal.
In the present case, the appellant filed an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 550/2017 dated 01/12/2017, which was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeal) as time-barred. The main contention was that the appeal was filed beyond the statutory period of 60 days as per Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, due to the appellant's mistaken belief that the appeal period was 90 days. The appellant's counsel admitted the delay but argued it was within 90 days. The Revenue's representative supported the impugned order, emphasizing the strict adherence to the statutory timeline. The Tribunal noted the Supreme Court's ruling in Singh Enterprises v/s CCE, Jamshedpur, which allowed a 30-day condonation of delay by the Commissioner (Appeals) on showing sufficient cause. Despite the appellant demonstrating a valid reason for the delay, the Commissioner had not exercised this discretion. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant should not be penalized for the erroneous advice received, setting aside the order and remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeal) for a fresh decision on the merits without considering the issue of limitation, granting the appellant the opportunity to present additional evidence if necessary.
|
