2021 (9) TMI 585 - AT - Customs

Refund of excess basic customs duty - Refund rejected on the ground of time limitation - Exercise of Power of Commissioner (appeals) to condone the delay - appeal filed within the period of 30 days over and above the initial period of 60 days - HELD THAT - The Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a hyper-technical approach as far as the pleas of limitation are concerned. He has failed to exercise the discretion provided to him under the statute. Mentioning of unavoidable circumstance is opined to be a sufficient reason for not meeting the time limit in filing the appeal which is otherwise within the scope of condonable limit. Law has been settled that adjudication on merits has to be preferred instead of rejecting on the technical issues as that of time, unless and until there is an apparent delay that too either with malafide intent or negligence or lack of due diligence. In the present case, none of the circumstances are apparent. Reliance placed in the case of MULLAJI PRINTS P. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS, SURAT 2003 (11) TMI 431 - CESTAT, MUMBAI wherein it has been held that when the contention of appellants is such that they got a good case on merits non-condonation of delay may result in injustice to them. Otherwise also learned Apex Court has always taken liberal view in condoning delay. Present is a fit case where learned Commissioner (Appeals) could have exercised the discretion provided to him under the statute - the appeal stands allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal rejection on the ground of limitation.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a refund claim for excess basic custom duty against a Bill of Entry. The claim was proposed to be rejected and was eventually rejected via an Order-in-Original (OIO). The appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) beyond the statutory period of 60 days, but within the condonable limit of 30 days as provided under the Central Excise Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal solely on the ground of limitation, without considering the appellant's reasons for the delay. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) took a hyper-technical approach and failed to exercise the discretion provided to him under the statute. The Tribunal emphasized that adjudication on merits should be preferred over rejecting appeals on technical grounds, especially when there is no apparent delay due to malafide intent, negligence, or lack of due diligence. Citing a precedent, the Tribunal highlighted that non-condonation of delay in cases where appellants have a strong case on merits may result in injustice. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have considered the circumstances and merits of the case before rejecting the appeal solely on the basis of limitation. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for adjudication on merits, allowing the appeal by way of remand.