2018 (6) TMI 83 - AT - Customs

Payment of refund in cash - Period of Limitation - SAD Refund - appeal not filed within the mandatory period from the date of the original authority s order and is time barred - Held that - The time limit for filing appeal prescribed in Section 128 is 60 days period between the date of communication of the original authorities order to the date of filing of the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant was not aggrieved by the original authority s order received on 25.04.2016. He became aggrieved only on 30.12.2016, when his attempt to secure the recredit into the FPS licence failed - the time limit in this case, for purposes of Section 128 is to be reckoned from 30.12.2016. From such date the appeal is filed within time. The time exhausted in pursuing the matter with DGFT should be excluded for the purpose of computation of the limitation period, as per terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - Impugned order set aside - the matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass orders on merit.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to time-barred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) regarding refund of Additional Duty of Custom (SAD) sanctioned by Assistant Commissioner, delay in filing appeal, interpretation of time limit for filing appeal under Section 128, exclusion of time spent pursuing redressal with DGFT.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a claim for refund of SAD, sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner, part through RTGS and the rest ordered to be recredited into FPS license. Upon realizing the recredit scheme was halted, appellant sought cash refund, leading to a delay in filing an appeal against the refund order. The Commissioner (Appeals) held the appeal time-barred due to not filing within the mandatory period from the original order date. The appellant argued the delay was due to pursuing redressal with DGFT post-appeal period, citing relevant case laws.

The AR for the Revenue supported the time-barred decision, noting a 265-day delay in filing the appeal after approaching DGFT authorities post-appeal period. The Tribunal considered the timeline: the refund order received on 25.04.2016, appellant's grievance post-DGFT's closure on 30.12.2016, and the appeal filed on 19.01.2017. It interpreted the time limit under Section 128, stating the appellant's grievance arose on 30.12.2016, justifying the appeal's timeliness from that date. The Tribunal excluded time spent pursuing DGFT redressal per Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, aligning with the Kamdhenu Ispat Limited case decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the time-barred decision, remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for merit-based orders. The judgment, pronounced on 22.05.2018, clarified the interpretation of the time limit for filing appeals in such circumstances, emphasizing the exclusion of time spent pursuing redressal with relevant authorities.