2016 (11) TMI 1202 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - The Statute provides a period of limitation of 60 days to file appeals - pre-deposit - The learned counsel for the petitioners invited the attention of this Court to the circular issued by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 14.10.2014 and sought to impress upon this Court by contending that the Tribunal directed three opportunities/reminders be given so as to ensure that the predeposits are being done - Held that - In my view, such a circular would not be a reason for this Court to issue a direction especially when the Statute does not empower the second respondent to condone the delay for more than 30 days. That apart, it has been held in several decisions that the Writ Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, cannot extend the period of limitation as prescribed under the Statute. Therefore, the only option available to the petitioners is to prefer appeals to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal as against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) - appeal not maintainable and is dismissed - liberty granted to the petitioners to file appeals as against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).

Summary

Issues:
Challenging Orders-in-Original and Orders-in-Appeal regarding confiscation of gold, penalties, and appeals process.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged Orders-in-Original confiscating gold and imposing penalties under the Customs Act. Subsequently, they contested Orders-in-Appeal by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) claiming their appeals were time-barred due to non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement. The petitioners received the original orders in December 2015, but attempted to file incomplete appeals beyond the 60-day limit. The Commissioner's office returned the incomplete appeals, instructing proper format and pre-deposit compliance. The petitioners failed to meet the pre-deposit condition despite being informed of the requirement.

The petitioners, unaware of the amended procedure, persisted in seeking waiver of the pre-deposit condition. The Department clarified the necessity of pre-deposit, emphasizing the requirement for proof of payment along with appeal papers. The petitioners belatedly made the pre-deposit after the deadline, rendering the appeals time-barred. The argument that appeal presentation differed from admission was dismissed, emphasizing the need for sufficient cause for delay condonation. The Commissioner rightly rejected the appeals due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement within the statutory timeline.

Citing a circular from the Customs Tribunal on pre-deposit reminders, the petitioners sought leniency, but the court held that statutory provisions limited delay condonation to 30 days. It was emphasized that the court could not extend statutory limitations under Article 226 of the Constitution. Consequently, the writ petitions challenging the Orders-in-Appeal were dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioners were advised to file appeals before the Customs Tribunal. The dismissal of these writ petitions also extended to related cases, granting petitioners the liberty to appeal before the Customs Tribunal.