2004 (5) TMI 198 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Appeal filed belatedly, Alternative remedy before Commissioner (Appeals), Time limitation for filing appeal, Misrepresentation of facts on limitation.

Analysis:
The appeals in question arose from the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing them as belated, filed four years after the Adjudication Order. Initially, a Writ Petition was filed before the High Court, which directed the appellants to approach the appellate authority. However, instead of filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), they chose to appeal before CEGAT, which was subsequently dismissed as non-maintainable for not following the correct procedure. The appellants obtained a certified copy of the CEGAT order in 2003 and argued that the limitation should be considered from that date. The Departmental Representative argued that the appellants should have been diligent in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) in time or after the CEGAT order. The Tribunal noted that the Order-in-Original was issued in 1999, and the appeal should have been filed within three months. The appellants' actions of filing a Writ Petition and then appealing to CEGAT were deemed incorrect, and their attempt to shift blame for the delay onto the Tribunal was rejected. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to reject the appeal as time-barred, emphasizing that the appellants' chosen remedies did not absolve them of their responsibility to adhere to the correct legal procedures. The appeals were ultimately rejected as non-maintainable.