2022 (10) TMI 1084 - AT - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - appeal rejected on the ground of time bar - appeal was filed after 90 days, considering the date of order/ letter as 11.01.2016 and 01.08.2016 - HELD THAT - Though the appellant had been corresponding with the department on the issue on merit and department has responded vide letter dated 11.01.2016 and 01.08.2016 but the appellant preferred the appeal against the letter dated 03.05.2018 and in a column 4 i.e. date of communication was mentioned as 10.05.2018. In this fact, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) should have decided the appeal considering the letter dated 03.05.2018, if this be so, then the appeal was not time barred, therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have decided the appeal on the basis of letter dated 03.05.2018 and dismissing the appeal on ground of time bar is not proper. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal keeping in mind, letter dated 03.05.2018 as impugned letter - the appeal is disposed of by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals).

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal dismissed on the ground of time bar.
2. Determination of the date of communication for filing the appeal.
3. Consideration of multiple letters in the appeal process.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was directed against an order where the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed it on the basis of being time-barred, filed after 90 days from the date of the order/letter. The appellant argued that the appeal was challenging a letter dated 03.05.2018, with the communication date as 10.05.2018, thus falling within the time limit. The appellant contended that the appeal should have been decided on merit rather than dismissed on limitation.

2. The Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterated that the matter had already been disposed of in earlier letters dated 11.01.2016 and 01.08.2016, even though the appeal was against the letter dated 03.05.2018. The Tribunal noted the details in the appeal form CA-1, which specified the communication date as 10.05.2018. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have considered the appeal against the letter dated 03.05.2018 to determine its timeliness, indicating that the appeal was not time-barred.

3. The Tribunal carefully considered both sides' submissions and records. It observed that although the appellant had corresponded with the department on the issue, the appeal was filed against the letter dated 03.05.2018. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have decided the appeal based on the 03.05.2018 letter, indicating that the dismissal on grounds of time bar was improper. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision based on the 03.05.2018 letter, allowing consideration of facts from the earlier letters on merit. The Tribunal clarified that all proceedings related to the case should be considered by the Commissioner (Appeals) upon remand.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision based on the correct letter, emphasizing the need to consider all relevant facts and proceedings related to the case.