9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 769 - AT - CustomsCondonation of delay in filing appeal - appeal dismissed on the ground of delay in filing the appeal beyond the period that could have been condoned by the Commissioner (Appeals) in terms of Section 128 of the Customs Act - HELD THAT - From the declaration made by the appellant of C.A.-1 Form, it is quite evident that the appellant had received the order in the end of May 2017. Accordingly the appeal should have been filed within 90 days of the date of receipt of the order-in-original. The Commissioner (Appeals) could have at the most condoned a delay of 30 days in filing the appeal. In the present case the appeal has been filed by the appellant on 14.08.2019 before the Commissioner (Appeals). Thus the appeal has been filed approximately 866 days from the date of order-in-original i.e. 31.03.2017. As per Section 128 the Commissioner (Appeals) could have condoned the delay of 30 days beyond the 90 days allowed for filing the appeal. Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT has held that From the application for condonation of delay, it appears that the appellant has categorically accepted that on receipt of order the same was immediately handed over to the consultant for filing an appeal. If that is so, the plea that because of lack of experience in business there was delay does not stand to be reason. There are no merits in the appeal - appeal dismissed.
Issues: Appeal against dismissal due to delay in filing beyond prescribed period under Section 128 of the Customs Act.
Analysis: 1. Issue of Delay in Filing Appeal: The appellant filed an appeal beyond the prescribed time limit of 90 days as per Section 128 of the Customs Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal, citing the failure to adhere to the statutory time frame. The appellant declared the date of communication of the order in May 2017, well beyond the 90-day limit. The Commissioner emphasized strict compliance with statutory timelines, citing legal precedents such as State of Jharkhand vs Ambay Cements and Eagle Flask Industries Limited vs CCE, Pune, to support the decision not to condone the delay beyond the prescribed period. 2. Power of Commissioner (Appeals) to Condone Delay: Section 128 of the Customs Act allows the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone a delay of up to 30 days beyond the initial 60-day period for filing an appeal, subject to sufficient cause being shown by the appellant. The judgment referenced the case of M/s. Doaba Rolling Mills (P) Ltd and highlighted that the authority cannot extend the maximum period for condonation beyond what is stipulated in the statute. The judgment emphasized that the appellate authority can entertain appeals only within the statutory timelines and cannot exceed the specified condonable period. 3. Legal Precedents and Interpretation of Statutes: The judgment cited legal principles from various judicial pronouncements to underscore the importance of strict adherence to statutory provisions, especially regarding timelines for filing appeals. Reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Singh Enterprises, emphasizing the statutory provisions under Section 35 of the Act and the limited scope for condonation of delay by the appellate authority. The judgment clarified that the appellate authority's power to condone delay is restricted to the period specified in the statute and does not extend beyond what is explicitly allowed. 4. Sufficient Cause for Delay: The appellant's explanation for the delay, attributing it to the closure of the business and lack of experience, was not considered sufficient cause by the Commissioner (Appeals). The judgment highlighted that the concept of "sufficient cause" is subjective and must be evaluated based on the circumstances of each case. In this instance, the reasons provided by the appellant were deemed inadequate to justify the significant delay in filing the appeal. 5. Dismissal of Appeal: Based on the analysis of the facts, legal provisions, and precedents, the judgment concluded that there was no merit in the appeal and proceeded to dismiss it. The decision was pronounced in the open court, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals)'s ruling on the dismissal of the appeal due to the delay in filing beyond the prescribed period under Section 128 of the Customs Act.
|
