2025 (1) TMI 356 - AT - Customs

Time Limitation - Rejection of appeal on the ground of delay - HELD THAT - It is observed that apparently the appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation meant for filing the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) in terms of Section 128 of Customs Act, 1962. However, from the copy of the grounds of appeal filed before Commissioner (Appeals), it is observed that the reason for the delay that occurred in filing the said appeal was sufficiently explained by the appellant. However, the impugned order has not dealt with those reasons. The appeal has mechanically been rejected on ground of limitation by quoting the provision of Customs Act, 1962 and the decision of Hon ble High Court Delhi in the case of DELTA IMPEX VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (ACU) , NEW DELHI 2004 (2) TMI 81 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI . There is no discussion about the explanation given by the appellant for the delay that has occurred. Though, the Commissioner (Appeals) having no statutory power to condone the delay beyond 90 days of the receipt of order in original, seen from that perspective no infirmity can be found in the impugned order. In view of the explanation given by the appellant, the appeal was otherwise well within time when it was filed before Commissioner (Appeals). There has been catena of decisions referring that the matter shall be referred to be disposed on merits and the plea of limitation has to be dealt with liberally. Conclusion - The appeal filed on 30.02.2019 is within one month of date of receipt of order in original with the appellant. Keeping in view that there is nothing on or record, otherwise to show that the appellant deliberately had caused the impugned delay. Otherwise also while appellant is not going to gain anything while causing delay in filing the appeal. Present is deemed to be a fit case to be re-heard by Commissioner (Appeals) vis- -vis the merits of the appeal. Resultantly, the matter remanded back for de-novo adjudication on merits without discussing the aspect of limitation - appeal allowed by way of remand.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in rejecting the appellant's appeal on the grounds of delay in filing.
Whether the appellant provided a sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the appeal.
Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by not considering the appellant's explanation for the delay.
Whether the penalty imposed on the appellant for late filing of the Bill of Entry was justified.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Rejection of Appeal on Grounds of Delay

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The appeal was rejected based on the limitation period prescribed under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) cited the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Delta Impex.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the appeal was filed beyond the statutory period, but noted that the appellant had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, which was not considered by the Commissioner (Appeals).
Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant argued that the delay was due to the misplacement of the order by an employee and that the order was only brought to their attention on 08.01.2019, after which the appeal was promptly filed.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal recognized the appellant's explanation and found that the delay was not deliberate. It emphasized the need for a liberal approach to condoning delays to ensure justice on merits.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent argued that the appeal was filed beyond the permissible period, but the Tribunal focused on the appellant's reasonable explanation and the lack of prejudice to the department.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the appeal should be reheard on merits, setting aside the rejection based on delay.

Issue 2: Justification of Penalty for Late Filing

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The penalty was imposed under the Customs Act for late filing of the Bill of Entry, with reliance on CBEC Circular No. 12/2017.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the penalty itself but focused on the procedural aspect of the appeal being rejected without considering the appellant's explanation.
Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant had sought an amendment to the consignee's name, which delayed the filing of the Bill of Entry and led to the penalty.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal noted the appellant's efforts to rectify the error and the subsequent request for waiver of the penalty.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent maintained that the penalty was justified, but the Tribunal's decision to remand the case for rehearing implies a need to reassess the penalty's validity.
Conclusions: The Tribunal remanded the matter for a de-novo adjudication on merits, indicating that the penalty issue requires further examination.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Tribunal cited the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Another Vs Mst. Katiji & Ors: "Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated."
Core Principles Established: The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering explanations for delays and ensuring appeals are decided on merits rather than technicalities. It highlighted that justice should not be denied due to procedural lapses when reasonable explanations are provided.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal set aside the rejection of the appeal on the grounds of delay and remanded the case for a fresh hearing on merits by the Commissioner (Appeals), instructing that the matter be decided within three months, with due opportunity for both parties to be heard.