2003 (10) TMI 193 - AT - Customs

Order of Commissioner (Appeals) - Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - Limitation - Condonation of delay in filing

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against dismissal of appeal as barred by limitation.

Analysis:
The appeal in question was filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing an appeal by Mayur Steel Corporation as barred by limitation. The Commissioner found that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of 90 days from the communication of the order. The appellant contended that internal disputes among partners and lack of communication led to the delay in filing the appeal. However, the Tribunal emphasized that service to any partner of the firm constitutes service to the partnership firm, and the appeal was not filed within the stipulated 90 days.

The appellant relied on a Tribunal decision to support their case, but subsequent decisions clarified that when an appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation, the original order does not merge with the dismissal order. The Tribunal, citing relevant judgments, confirmed that the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in dismissing the appeal as time-barred, as he lacked the authority to condone the delay. The Tribunal's jurisdiction was limited to determining whether the appeal was rightly dismissed as barred by limitation, which was affirmed in this case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal against the dismissal based on limitation grounds. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for filing appeals and clarified the legal position regarding the dismissal of appeals on limitation grounds.