2021 (11) TMI 203 - HC - Customs

Concessional rate of duty - import of capital goods - EPCG scheme - N/N. 49/2000-Cus dated 27.04.2000 - time limitation - HELD THAT - The Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal being fact finding authorities have meticulously examined the material on record in arriving at a finding that non-mentioning of O.C.No.4066/2011 is not fatal for the delivery of the assessment order on the assessee. It is obvious that the Post Master General while giving the report has referred to the query made by the petitioner as regards the acknowledgment card with reference under O.C.No.4066/2011 as to whether that letter has been delivered. It is unrealistic to expect the said O.C.No.4066/2011, the reference number maintained in the register of the Assessing Officer, to be entered in the acknowledgment card as the reference number in the envelope and the postal acknowledgment. Any report given by the Post Master General with reference to O.C.No.4066/2011 would not assist the petitioner. Time Limitation - HELD THAT - The request made by the petitioner to decide the issue on merits dehorse the time barred appeal would run counter to the well established principles of law reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions. No power was vested with the authorities as well as the Tribunal to condone the delay beyond the statutory period of limitation - It is well settled that the Court can come to the rescue of the person who is vigilant about his rights and not to a person who sleeps over the matter and rises from the slumber at his convenience. It cannot be expected that the petitioner would have awaited the assessment order from 14.09.2011 till 31.12.2012 when attempts were made before the Appellate Authority to consider the matter on merits as per the letters relied upon by the assessee itself. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order due to failure to furnish documents supporting export obligation fulfillment, rejection of appeal by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) based on statutory limitation, dismissal of appeal by Tribunal, validity of writ petition challenging Tribunal's decision.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a manufacturer of plastic injection moulds and components, imported capital goods under the Export Promotion of Capital Goods Scheme. The Customs department confirmed a demand of ?63,00,321 due to alleged failure in fulfilling export obligations. The petitioner claimed non-receipt of the assessment order until 31.12.2012, leading to an appeal filed after the statutory period. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) rejected the appeal based on the limitation period, a decision upheld by the Tribunal.

The petitioner argued that the assessment order was not served timely, citing discrepancies in postal acknowledgments and responses from the Post Master General. The respondents maintained that the appeal was time-barred, emphasizing the acknowledgment served to the petitioner. Both parties referred to legal precedents to support their arguments.

The Court cited relevant judgments emphasizing adherence to statutory limitation periods and the importance of diligence in legal matters. Referring to the case law, the Court highlighted that condoning delays beyond statutory limits undermines legislative intent. The Court also mentioned a similar case where an appeal was rejected based on limitation, reinforcing the principle of timely legal actions.

The Court noted that the authorities had properly examined the case facts and found no fatal error in the delivery of the assessment order. Rejecting the petitioner's plea to consider the case on merits despite the time limitation, the Court reiterated the importance of respecting legal timelines and the consequences of delayed actions. Ultimately, the Court found no legal flaws in the impugned orders and dismissed the writ petition for lacking merit.