9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 28 - AT - CustomsRectification of Mistake - Contention of appellant/ applicant is that though they had raised the ground that the computation of period of limitation by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was erroneous, and their appeal was filed in time - Held that - There is error committed in the final order of this Tribunal. Firstly, the ground taken by the appellant, as regards computation of the period of limitation, has not been decided. Secondly, there is no discussion on the ruling of Larger Bench, which had a binding effect on the Division Bench passing the final order - the final order dated 10.04.2018 is recalled in the interest of justice. Service of notice - relevant date of knowledge - Held that - The date of receipt of the recovery notice is the date of knowledge i.e. 25 October, 2015, when the appellant received notice of recovery - from the date of knowledge, the appeal filed by the appellant before the commission appeals on 27 November 2015, was within time as the same is within 60 days from 25 October 2015 - Appeal remanded to the learned Commissioner (Appeals), to decide the appeal on merits. Application allowed.
Issues:
1. Computation of period of limitation for filing an appeal. 2. Validity of service of the order-in-original. 3. Rectification of mistakes in the final order. Issue 1: Computation of period of limitation for filing an appeal: The appellant contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal due to a delay in filing beyond the limitation period. The appellant argued that the appeal was filed within the stipulated time frame from the date of knowledge, not from the date of dispatch of the order. The appellant relied on a Larger Bench ruling that emphasized the requirement of evidence of service/proof of delivery for effective service under Section 153(a) of the Act. The Tribunal acknowledged the error in calculating the limitation period and the failure to consider the binding effect of the Larger Bench ruling. Consequently, the Tribunal recalled the final order in the interest of justice. Issue 2: Validity of service of the order-in-original: The Tribunal determined that there was no proper service of the order-in-original on the appellant as mandated by Section 153(a). Relying on the Larger Bench ruling, the Tribunal held that the appeal filed within 60 days of the appellant's knowledge of the order was within the limitation period. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the appeal's merits after hearing the appellant. Issue 3: Rectification of mistakes in the final order: The appellant sought rectification of the final order based on errors in the computation of the limitation period and the failure to consider the binding effect of the Larger Bench ruling. The Revenue opposed the rectification, citing precedents that limit rectification to patent mistakes. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments, allowed the rectification application and consequently allowed the appeal by remanding the case for further proceedings. In conclusion, the Tribunal acknowledged errors in the computation of the limitation period and the service of the order-in-original. The decision to recall the final order and remand the case for a fresh decision on the appeal's merits demonstrates a commitment to uphold procedural fairness and legal principles in the adjudication process.
|
