2024 (11) TMI 1240 - AT - Customs

Refund claim for refund of 4% SAD paid on the imported goods under 48 bills of entry - partial rejection of refund for three bills holding that two Bills of Entry were time-barred and one Bill of Entry was rejected as the duplicate copy of Bill of Entry and original copy of TR6 challan were not submitted - HELD THAT - From the facts of the case it is seen that the appellant received OIO 14284/2011 dated 25.01/2011 which was unsigned. An un-signed document looses its efficacy. As in SRK Enterprises Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) 2023 (12) TMI 156 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT , held that an unsigned order cannot be covered under any provision of law dealing with mistake, defect or omission therein, hence affecting the validity of the order and set aside the same with direction to the Competent Authority to pass fresh order in accordance with law. In the present case find that a signed order was subsequently issued on 30/11/2011 whereas the appeal was filed on 16/02/2012 involving a delay of 18 days which is within the condonable period as per proviso to Sec. 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. We, feel that the ends of justice would be served by remanding the matter back to the file of the Ld. Commissioner Appeals to be decided afresh on merits. The appeal is hence allowed by way of remand to the Ld. Commissioner Appeals, Custom House, Chennai, for a decision on merits and is disposed of accordingly.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against partial rejection of refund amount.
2. Appeal dismissed as time-barred by the First Appellate Authority.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported construction equipment, paid all customs duties including 4% SAD, and later filed a refund claim for the 4% SAD paid on imported goods under 48 bills of entry. The refund authority allowed a refund but rejected it for three bills, citing reasons such as time-barred entries and missing documents. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the appeal as time-barred without considering the merits of the case. The appellant argued that the delay in filing the appeal was within the condonable period as per the Customs Act. The Tribunal found that the appeal was dismissed as time-barred due to an unsigned order initially received by the appellant, which was later rectified with a signed order. Citing legal precedent, the Tribunal held that an unsigned order lacks validity and directed a fresh consideration of the appeal on its merits by the Commissioner Appeals.

2. The Tribunal noted that the appeal before the First Appellate Authority was dismissed as time-barred due to the delay in filing the appeal after receiving an unsigned order. However, upon receiving a signed order, the appeal was filed within the condonable period as per the Customs Act. Considering the circumstances and legal principles, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the matter back to the Commissioner Appeals for a fresh decision on the merits of the case. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of ensuring justice by allowing the appeal to be reconsidered based on its substantive aspects rather than dismissing it solely on procedural grounds.

This judgment highlights the significance of procedural compliance and the need for a fair consideration of appeals on their merits. It underscores the legal principle that an unsigned order lacks validity and cannot form the basis for dismissing an appeal as time-barred. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for a fresh consideration on merits demonstrates a commitment to upholding justice and ensuring that appeals are adjudicated fairly based on substantive legal grounds.