9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 413 - AT - Customscondonation of delay - in filing appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) - time limit prescribed u/s 149 - HELD THAT - The appeal has to be filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) within 60 days, though a period of 30 days after the expiry of the initial period of 60 days can be condoned if the appellant is able to satisfy the Commissioner (Appeals) that it was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the period of 60 days. The submission advanced by the authorized representative before the Commissioner (Appeals) that there is no time limit prescribed u/s 149 of the Customs Act was, therefore, correctly rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) as this fact was irrelevant for the purpose of computation of limitation provided for filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, in the absence of any explanation provided by the appellant for condoning the delay, committed no error in dismissing the appeal. The present appeal is, therefore, without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Issues:
The appeal seeks to quash the order dismissing the appeal as time-barred due to delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) within the stipulated time frame of 60 days from the date of communication of the decision or order. The appellant had requested an amendment of the Bill of Entry under section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, which was rejected, leading to the appeal. Summary: The appellant submitted a Bill of Entry based on a supplier's invoice in US$, later realizing the error and requesting an amendment under section 149 of the Customs Act. The request was rejected, prompting the appeal. The Customs Act allows appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) within 60 days, extendable by 30 days for sufficient cause. The appellant filed the appeal after the initial 60-day period, and the delay could be condoned if sufficient cause was shown. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted the lack of explanation for the delay, as the appellant's representative argued no time limit for the amendment, which was deemed irrelevant for the appeal filing limitation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit due to the absence of a valid explanation for the delay, as required by law. Separate Judgment: No separate judgment was delivered in this case.
|
