2024 (8) TMI 268 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - no sufficient cause for the delay - classification of 'imitation jewellery' - HELD THAT - The issue is regarding classification of 'imitation jewellery'. As the Commissioner (Appeals) has already decided the issue on merits in the case of the appellant in the common order dated 12.10.2021, it is considered appropriate to decide this appeal instead of remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals). In view of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), it has to be held that 'imitation jewellery' would merit classification under Customs Tariff Heading 7117 and would be eligible for exemption from payment of Special Additional Duty under the Notification dated 17.03.2012. The impugned order dated 12.10.2021 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to the appeal filed against the order dated 24.03.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner is set aside with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant - Appeal allowed.

Issues:
1. Timeliness of filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Interpretation of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020.
3. Classification of 'imitation jewellery' under Customs Tariff Heading 7117 for exemption from Special Additional Duty.

Issue 1: Timeliness of filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals):
The appellant filed an appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, confirming a demand for differential duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as it was filed beyond the stipulated period of 60 days. However, the appellant argued that the appeal was filed within the extended period granted by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020, which was later converted into an Act. The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed within the extended period and should be considered timely. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, noting that the appeal dismissal based solely on the filing time was not tenable.

Issue 2: Interpretation of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020:
The appellant contended that the appeal was filed within the extended period granted by the Ordinance, which was subsequently converted into an Act. The Tribunal acknowledged that the appeal was filed within the extended time frame provided by the Ordinance, despite being beyond the initial 60-day period. The Tribunal emphasized that the Ordinance automatically extended the filing period, and as such, the appeal was considered timely even though the appellant did not raise this point during the hearing before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Issue 3: Classification of 'imitation jewellery' under Customs Tariff Heading 7117 for exemption from Special Additional Duty:
The Commissioner (Appeals) had previously determined that 'imitation jewellery' falls under Customs Tariff Heading 7117 and is eligible for exemption from Special Additional Duty under a specific notification. As this issue was already decided in a common order for the appellant's other appeals, the Tribunal decided to address it directly instead of remanding the matter. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s classification of 'imitation jewellery' under Customs Tariff Heading 7117, making it eligible for the exemption from Special Additional Duty under the relevant notification. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and granting relief to the appellant.

This comprehensive analysis of the legal judgment covers the issues related to the timeliness of filing the appeal, the interpretation of the Ordinance, and the classification of 'imitation jewellery' for exemption from Special Additional Duty.

← Previous Next →