2023 (10) TMI 1048 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - appeals were not filed within the stipulated time frame of 60 days and also for a further period of condonable 30 days - HELD THAT - It is found that no physical final assessment order was issued to the appellant.The final assessment was updated online only. Moreover, for the differential duty, the challan was generated only on 11.07.2017. In this position, it is 11.07.2017 when the appellant could notice the final assessment of bill of entry. Therefore, the date 11.07.2017 is the correct date of communication of final assessment to the appellant. The identical issue was considered by this Tribunal in the case of GAIL (INDIA) LTD. VERSUS C.C. -AHMEDABAD. 2023 (10) TMI 1044 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD wherein the Tribunal has held that even though the final assessment has been made but the communication of the final assessment is relevant. In the present case also, the appellant came to know about the final assessment only on 11.07.2017. Accordingly, the appeal was filed well within the time. The impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the appeals before him on merit.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the timely filing of appeals, communication of final assessment, and the relevance of the date of communication in relation to the filing of appeals.

Timely Filing of Appeals:
The learned Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals on the ground that they were not filed within the stipulated time frame of 60 days and a further condonable period of 30 days. The appellant contended that the final assessment order was not physically served and was updated online, with the challan for the differential duty generated later. The appeal was filed within 60 days of the appellant becoming aware of the final assessment, relying on a previous Tribunal decision. The Tribunal found that no physical final assessment order was issued, and the date of communication to the appellant was when the challan was generated. Citing previous decisions, the Tribunal held that the date of service of finalization of provisional assessment is the relevant date for claiming a refund.

Communication of Final Assessment:
The appellant argued that the final assessment was made on a certain date but was only noticed by them when the challan for the differential duty was generated. The appellant claimed the date of communication as the date they became aware of the final assessment, not the date it was made. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that the date of communication is crucial. The Tribunal emphasized that even though the final assessment was made earlier, the communication date is significant. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the case for further consideration on merit by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals).

Relevance of Date of Communication:
The Tribunal highlighted the importance of the date of communication of the final assessment to the appellant. It was noted that the appellant only became aware of the final assessment on a specific date when the challan was generated. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions to support the argument that the date of service of finalization of provisional assessment is pivotal in determining the relevant date for various legal purposes. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument regarding the date of communication, leading to the allowance of the appeal and remand for further proceedings.

This judgment emphasizes the significance of the date of communication of final assessments in relation to the timely filing of appeals and legal proceedings, highlighting the need for clarity and awareness on the part of the appellant regarding such communications.