2018 (9) TMI 135 - AT - Customs

EPCG License - Concessional Rate of Duty - N/N. 49/2000-Cus. dated 27.4.2000 - Department alleged that the appellant failed to submit the requisite documents regarding export obligation as well as the requisite certificate as required under said notification within the prescribed time limit - Held that - As per the appellant s own appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), the date of communication of order is mentioned. No doubt the date is the same as the date of O-I-A and apparently there is no document proving the service of the communication of said order but appellant did not raise this ground before the Commissioner (Appeals) nor pleaded the same as inadvertent mistake. There is no evidence on record as to when the said RTI, as impressed upon was filed. Thus, the reason cited doesn t appear to be the sufficient justifiable cause. Commissioner (Appeals) has committed no error while dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation for want of any sufficient cause or explanation thereto. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 95/2018 dated 22.3.2018 of Commissioner (Appeals) regarding import of goods under EPCG license.
2. Allegation of failure to submit requisite documents for export obligation leading to a demand for differential duty and penalty.
3. Appeal dismissal by Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of being time-barred.
4. Argument regarding non-receipt of original order and delay in filing the appeal.
5. Dispute over the date of communication of the order and lack of evidence of service.
6. Legal interpretation of the law of limitation under Section 128 of Customs Act and discretion of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delays.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 95/2018 dated 22.3.2018 of Commissioner (Appeals) concerning the import of goods under an EPCG license. The appellant was allowed to import goods at a concessional rate subject to fulfilling certain conditions. However, the department alleged non-submission of necessary documents related to export obligations, leading to a demand for differential duty and penalty. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, and the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed as time-barred due to a delay of almost two years.

During the hearing, the appellant argued that they never received the original order and requested an adjournment to obtain information through RTI. The department objected, highlighting the date of communication mentioned in the appeal memo and the significant delay in filing the appeal. The appellant cited a previous court decision and requested dismissal based on the submissions. The appellant later rebutted, emphasizing the discrepancy in the date of communication of the order and the lack of evidence regarding its service.

Upon reviewing the arguments and records, the Tribunal found that the appellant had mentioned the date of communication in their appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), which coincided with the date of the original order. Despite the absence of proof of service, the appellant did not raise this issue earlier. The Tribunal noted the delay of two years in filing the appeal and discussed the law of limitation under Section 128 of the Customs Act, which allows a two-month appeal period with discretionary extension by another month by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Citing the legal principle of "sufficient cause," the Tribunal referred to a previous decision and the relevant provisions of the Customs Act. It emphasized the importance of timely appeals and dismissed the current appeal, aligning with the decision in the mentioned case. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not err in dismissing the appeal due to the lack of sufficient cause for the delay, thus upholding the original decision based on legal and factual considerations.