2014 (6) TMI 51 - HC - Customs

Condonation of delay in filing of appeal - due to filing revision application at wrong forum - Denial of drawback claim - inputs used on the exported product - Held that - the Tribunal, as would be apparent from the impugned order, took rather a strict view on limitation and inferred that the petitioner caused deliberate delay. In the present case the show-cause notice and the order-in-original made in 2009 had proposed recovery of penalty amount of ₹ 60 lakhs and ₹ 75 lakhs. Under the circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal that it intentionally approached authorities who did not possess jurisdiction does not appear to be justified. Having regard to the peculiar circumstances, the petitioner s appeal before the CESTAT being 2013 (5) TMI 712 - CESTAT NEW DELHI shall be taken up for consideration uninfluenced by the question of delay - Delay condoned.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeal before CESTAT.
2. Refusal to condone the delay.
3. Jurisdictional issues in approaching authorities.
4. Imposition of penalties under Customs Act.

Analysis:

1. Delay in filing appeal before CESTAT:
The petitioner was aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal to the CESTAT due to a delay in approaching the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the appeal citing the delay as the reason. The petitioner sold readymade garments to a merchant exporter and claimed drawback of duties suffered on exported products. The delay in filing the appeal was attributed to the petitioner's lack of knowledge about the rejection of revision by the revisional authority, which came to light only later. The High Court, considering the circumstances, directed the CESTAT to consider the appeal without being influenced by the delay issue.

2. Refusal to condone the delay:
The main question of law that arose was whether the Tribunal erred in refusing to condone the delay and hear the appeal on merits. The Tribunal took a strict view on limitation and inferred that the petitioner deliberately caused the delay. However, the High Court found that the circumstances leading to the delay were beyond the petitioner's control, as they were unaware of the rejection of revision by the revisional authority. The High Court directed the CESTAT to consider the appeal without being influenced by the delay issue.

3. Jurisdictional issues in approaching authorities:
The petitioner had approached the Central Government for revision under the mistaken belief that it was maintainable, leading to further confusion and delay in the process. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which dismissed the writ petition. The High Court noted that the petitioner's confusion regarding the appropriate authority to approach contributed to the delay in filing the appeal before the CESTAT. The High Court directed the CESTAT to consider the appeal on its merits without taking into account the delay caused by the jurisdictional confusion.

4. Imposition of penalties under Customs Act:
The respondent had proposed to impose penalties under Section 114A of the Customs Act in addition to disallowing the drawback claimed by the petitioner. The show-cause notice issued in 2009 culminated in an order-in-original proposing significant penalty amounts. The High Court observed that the Tribunal's finding that the petitioner intentionally approached authorities lacking jurisdiction was not justified, given the circumstances of the case. The High Court directed the CESTAT to first decide on any pending applications for waiver of pre-deposit before adjudicating on the merits of the appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal, directing the CESTAT to consider the appeal without being influenced by the delay issue and to decide on any pending applications for waiver of pre-deposit before proceeding with the merits of the appeal.