2022 (9) TMI 1229 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay of 5 days in filing appeal - applicability of time limitation - it is claimed that the date mentioned is just and inadvertent error - HELD THAT - On perusal of the impugned order, it is noted by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the Order-in-Original is signed by the adjudicating authority on 06.04.2015. Merely because the appellant had mentioned the date of receipt of the order in Form C.A.1 as 09.03.2015, the Commissioner (Appeals) has blindly accepted this date for computing the period of limitation. When it is obvious that the date mentioned in Form C.A.1 is an inadvertent error, the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have considered the argument put forward by the appellant with regard to the error committed by them. The OIO having been signed on 06.04.2015 and the impugned order having been received by the appellant only on 09.06.2015, when computed from the date of receipt of the impugned order, the appeal ought to have been filed on 08.08.2015. The appeal is filed on 13.08.2015 with a delay of 5 days which is within the condonable period of limitation. The matter requires to be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) who shall give an opportunity to the appellant to file an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal - Appeal is allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal time-barred due to incorrect date of receipt mentioned in Form C.A.1.

Analysis:
The judgment in this case revolves around the issue of whether the appeal filed by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) is time-barred. The appellant had initially filed an appeal against an order passed by the original authority, claiming that the order was generated on a later date than the one mentioned in Form C.A.1. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal as time-barred based on the date mentioned in the form. However, upon examination, it was found that the Order-in-Original was signed on a different date than the one mentioned in the form. The Tribunal noted that the date discrepancy was an inadvertent error and that the appeal was filed within the condonable period of limitation. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration.

The appellant's argument centered on the discrepancy between the date of receipt mentioned in Form C.A.1 and the actual date when the Order-in-Original was signed. The appellant contended that the date mentioned in the form was incorrect due to the order being signed at a later date. The Tribunal agreed with this argument, emphasizing that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have considered this discrepancy and the appellant's explanation regarding the error. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the timeline of events, highlighting that the appeal was filed within the permissible period if calculated from the actual date of receipt of the order by the appellant. As a result, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal was not time-barred and required reconsideration by the Commissioner (Appeals) with an opportunity for the appellant to seek condonation of the slight delay in filing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment in this case addressed the issue of the appeal being time-barred due to an incorrect date of receipt mentioned in Form C.A.1. By examining the sequence of events and acknowledging the inadvertent error in the form, the Tribunal determined that the appeal was filed within the condonable period of limitation. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further consideration, emphasizing the need to allow the appellant to seek condonation of the minor delay in filing the appeal.