9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether a communication from the Deputy Commissioner of Customs can be considered an order under the Customs Act, 1962? 2. Whether the appeal filed against the order was within the prescribed time limit? Analysis: Issue 1: The appellant contended that a communication demanding duty from the Deputy Commissioner of Customs was not a valid order under Sections 128 and 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, as it lacked reasons and did not address the appellant's pleas. The appellant argued that the show cause notice issued after six months was time-barred. The appellant also claimed to have requested a personal hearing after receiving the communication. On the contrary, the respondent cited a Supreme Court judgment where a similar communication was considered an order. The communication in question explicitly stated that an appeal could be made to the Appellate Commissioner of Customs within three months, along with details on court fees and pre-deposit requirements. The court found the appellant's argument baseless as the communication clearly indicated it was an order, and the appellant had been given a show cause notice and an opportunity to respond. Issue 2: Regarding the appeal's timeliness, Section 128 of the Act allowed for a three-month window to appeal a Deputy Commissioner's order to the Appellate Commissioner. The appellant received the order on 11-7-2000 but filed the appeal on 14-2-2001, clearly exceeding the deadline. The Act permitted a further three-month condonation for delayed appeals, but the appellant failed to provide sufficient reasons for the delay. The Commissioner (Appeals) found no justification for the late appeal filing and thus did not condone the delay. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal due to its untimeliness and lack of merit.
|
