2019 (4) TMI 342 - HC - Customs

Condonation of delay - Time limitation of appeal - period of limitation as prescribed under Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - The appellant would strenuously contend that there are sufficient records to show that the appeals are not barred by limitation and this Court should pursue the appeal files and examine as to whether the appeals are barred by limitation - such an exercise cannot be done by us in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 130 of the Customs Act. To be noted, the Commissioner(Appeals), which is a fact finding Authority has rendered a finding that in many of the cases, the review orders have been passed after the stipulated period of 3 months from the date of communication of the order in original since the date of dispatch of the impugned order could not be ascertained with authenticity and the delay in such cases were not considered. The onus is on the appellants that the review orders have been passed within the stipulated time. If the department was unable to discharge such onus, then the consequence has to necessarily follow. The Tribunal also pointed out that the Commissioner (Appeals) has flagged the number of days of noncondonable delay in each of the cases which has not been disputed by the Department. Therefore, the Tribunal held that they are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Before us the Department cannot seek for a roving enquiry or for re-adjudication of facts which has been done by the Tribunal. The order passed by the Tribunal confirming the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the appeals on the ground of limitation alone requires to be confirmed - there is no substantial questions of law arising for consideration in these appeals - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the order of the Tribunal in dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation is justified under the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Whether the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeals as barred by limitation was correct.
3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in declining to exercise statutory power under Customs Act, 1962, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
4. Whether the Tribunal failed to apply the precedent set by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
5. Whether the Tribunal erred in interpreting the limitation period for passing review orders under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The Appeals by the Revenue were directed against the common order passed by the CESTAT. The Revenue raised substantial questions of law regarding the limitation period under the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals as time-barred based on Section 129D(3) & (4) of the Act. The Commissioner emphasized the importance of filing appeals within the prescribed time limits. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, noting the non-condonable delay in filing appeals by the Revenue. The Tribunal refused to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory timelines.

The Court considered whether there was an error in the CESTAT's decision and concluded that the order rejecting the appeals on grounds of limitation alone was justified. The Court highlighted that the onus was on the appellants to prove timely review orders and appeal filings. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, emphasizing that the Department cannot request a re-adjudication of facts already considered. The Court dismissed the appeals solely on the ground of limitation, without delving into the merits of the case. It was clarified that no substantial questions of law arose for consideration in these appeals, and costs were not awarded.

In conclusion, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, confirming the rejection of appeals based on limitation grounds. The judgment focused on the importance of complying with statutory timelines under the Customs Act, 1962, and upheld the decisions of the lower authorities regarding the time-barred appeals.