2022 (12) TMI 987 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - rejection on the ground of time limitation - appeal filed beyond the statutory period provided - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the order-in-original is dated 19.07.2012. However, it is the case of the petitioner that the entity, as against which the order had been passed, had been amalgamated with the petitioner and hence, the assessee, N.R.Chemicals Private Limited, ceased to exist on and from 06.05.2011. Admittedly, the order has been served in the name of the erstwhile entity, to its address. The case of the petitioner to the effect that order had come to its notice only when a detention notice had been issued on 12.03.2019 is acceptable. On 19.06.2019, upon request made by the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs has supplied a copy of the order-in-original paving the way for the filing of appeal before the first Appellate Authority - the intervening period is liable to be eschewed in the computation of statutory limitation for filing of appeal. Since the order has been received by the petitioner on 19.06.2019 and the appeal has been filed on 20.06.2019, there is, in my considered view, no delay. The impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent on 05.08.2020 is set aside and the appeal is restored to the file of the 2nd respondent to be heard on merits and in accordance with law - This writ petition is disposed off.

Issues:
1. Correction of cause-title in the petition.
2. Challenge to an order under the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Issue of limitation in filing an appeal.
4. Consideration of amalgamation of entities.
5. Setting aside the impugned order and restoring the appeal.
6. Address discrepancy in the cause-title.
7. Fixing a date for the appeal hearing before the Commissioner of Customs.

Correction of Cause-Title:
The petitioner pointed out an error in the cause-title, where the wrong entity was named. The correct entity was 'N.R. Colours Limited.' The court amended the cause-title to reflect the accurate name of the petitioner.

Challenge to Order under Customs Act:
The petitioner challenged an order under the Customs Act, 1962, which was rejected by the first Appellate Authority citing limitation as the reason for dismissal. The petitioner argued that the entity against which the order was passed had been amalgamated with the petitioner, leading to a delay in receiving the order.

Consideration of Limitation and Amalgamation:
The petitioner contended that the order was served to the erstwhile entity's address and only came to their notice when a detention notice was issued later. The court accepted the petitioner's argument that the time between the order being received and the appeal being filed should not be considered for limitation purposes due to the amalgamation of entities.

Setting Aside Impugned Order and Restoration of Appeal:
The court set aside the impugned order, ruling that there was no delay in filing the appeal. The appeal was restored to be heard on its merits and in accordance with the law. However, the original order was not set aside, allowing the petitioner to raise all grounds in the first appeal.

Address Discrepancy and Hearing Date Fixation:
An address discrepancy was noted in the cause-title, and a date for the appeal hearing before the Commissioner of Customs was fixed to ensure compliance with the order. The petitioner was directed to appear for the appeal hearing on a specified date for disposal within four weeks thereafter.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was disposed of, with connected miscellaneous petitions closed, and no costs imposed. The judgment addressed the correction of the cause-title, the challenge to the order under the Customs Act, the issue of limitation due to amalgamation, setting aside the impugned order, addressing the address discrepancy, and fixing a date for the appeal hearing before the Commissioner of Customs.

← Previous Next →