9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
1. Appeal rejection as time-barred by the first respondent. Analysis: The petitioner, a company engaged in the manufacture of Beer and Indian Made Foreign Liquor, imported a labelling machine and claimed exemption under Customs Tariff sub-heading 8422.30. The second respondent rejected the claim, leading to the petitioner filing a writ petition for release of the machine. The High Court directed the release on certain conditions. The petitioner sent an appeal to the first respondent within six months, but it was received after the deadline. The main issue is whether the appeal sent on 2-5-1992 and received on 25-5-1992 complies with the time limit under Section 128 of the Customs Act. The petitioner argued that the appeal was sent within time, while the Additional Central Government Standing Counsel contended it was filed late. The court examined Section 128 of the Customs Act, which allows a three-month window for filing appeals, extendable by another three months for sufficient cause. The appeal must be presented to the appellate authority within this period. The court noted that the appeal papers were received after six months from the original order, emphasizing that the date of receipt in the office is crucial for determining timeliness. The court cited Rule 6 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, which deems an appeal sent by post as presented on the date of receipt in the office of the concerned officer. The petitioner relied on a Kerala High Court decision regarding an appeal wrongly addressed and a Tribunal decision about dispatching appeals before the limitation period. However, the court found these cases inapplicable to the current situation. The court also referenced a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the importance of the date of receipt for appeal timeliness. Additionally, two decisions of the High Court were cited to support the principle that the date of receipt in the office is crucial for filing within the prescribed time limit. Ultimately, the court upheld the first respondent's decision to reject the appeal as time-barred, as it was received after the six-month deadline. The court dismissed the writ petition and the stay petition, finding no error in the impugned order.
|
