2020 (3) TMI 645 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay of 112 days in filing appeal - time limitation - suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty or not - HELD THAT - The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal being time barred because the same was filed after a period of 112 days whereas it should have been filed within 60 days and the Commissioner (Appeals) has got power to condone upto 30 days. Since the appeal has been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on time bar without going into the merits of the case, we are of the considered view that this case needs to be remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue on merit without going into the question of limitation. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order rejecting appellant's appeal as time-barred without considering merits.
2. Delay in filing appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) beyond statutory period.
3. High Court's direction to Tribunal to admit appeal on pre-deposit and hear on all points.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the appellant's appeal as time-barred without delving into the merits of the case. The appellant, engaged in processing and exporting Mica products, faced a situation where they were unable to pay export cess due to a technical fault in the system while exporting cargo by air during a specific period. This led to a demand notice under the Customs Act, 1962, for a specified amount along with interest, invoking the extended period of limitation. The appellant's appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as time-barred due to a delay of 112 days beyond the statutory period, which could only be condoned by 30 days as per the Customs Act.

2. The appellant contended that the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred was not legally sustainable. They argued that the show-cause notice did not allege suppression of facts to evade duty, emphasizing the technical fault in the system that prevented the payment of customs cess. The appellant asserted that the entire demand was time-barred and should be decided on merits after the High Court's condonation of the matter upon a payment of a specified amount.

3. The Tribunal, upon hearing both sides and examining the records, noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal solely on the grounds of being time-barred without addressing the substantive merits of the case. Considering the High Court's direction to admit the appeal on a pre-deposit and hear all points, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the merits without the limitation issue. This decision was based on the High Court's condonation of the delay and the appellant's compliance with the specified payment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment allowed the appeal by remanding the case for a merit-based decision, emphasizing the need to address the substantive issues rather than focusing solely on the limitation aspect.