2019 (2) TMI 606 - AT - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - non-compliance with the provisions of Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Chapter II of Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 - time limitation - Held that - Since it has been admitted by the Department that appeal was filed on 12/12/2013 and not on 31/05/2017, I hold that appeal was within time before the Commissioner(Appeals). The dismissal of appeal on time bar is not tenable in law - case remanded back to the Commissioner(Appeals) to decide the same on merits after complying with the principles of natural justice and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection for non-compliance with Customs Act and Appeals Rules; Excess payment of customs duty; Appeal dismissed on time bar; Correct filing date of appeal disputed; Appeal sent to wrong section; Literal interpretation of forwarding letter.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the rejection order by the Commissioner(Appeals) due to non-compliance with the provisions of Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, and Chapter II of Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982. The appellant, a trader of pre-painted steel coils, imported goods at a duty rate of 10% but later discovered the correct rate was 7.5%. A refund claim was filed but returned as the assessment was finalized. The appeal was rejected by the Commissioner(Appeals) as time-barred, prompting the appellant to challenge this decision.

During the hearing, the consultant for the appellant argued that the appeal was filed on time, despite discrepancies in the covering letter. The appellant had corrected errors in the application and submitted supporting documentation. The AR defended the initial order. The Tribunal examined the evidence and found that the appeal was indeed filed on 12/12/2013, as confirmed by a reply to an RTI application. It was noted that the appeal was wrongly sent to the refund section, causing confusion. The Tribunal criticized the literal interpretation of the forwarding letter by the Commissioner(Appeals) and ruled in favor of the appellant.

The Tribunal held that since the Department acknowledged the appeal filing date as 12/12/2013, the dismissal on grounds of being time-barred was incorrect. The order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Commissioner(Appeals) for a decision on merits, emphasizing adherence to natural justice principles and providing a hearing to the appellants. The operative part of the order was pronounced on 11/01/2019.