2025 (1) TMI 961 - AT - Customs

Dismissal of application on the sole ground of limitation (time barred) - satisfactory explanation for the delay or not - power of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay - HELD THAT - The Commissioner (Appeals) has power to entertain appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of such decision or order and he may allow such appeal within further period of 30 days after giving finding on sufficient cause on which the appellant was prevented to file appeal within stipulated time period. Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of SINGH ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. JAMSHEDPUR 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT has inter alia held that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the condonable period of 30 days. The Tribunal is a creature of statute and is bound to act within the four walls of the statute. Tribunal has no discretionary power to condone the delay beyond the time limit prescribed under the Act. Thus admittedly the appellants were served the OIOs dt.13.03.2023 14.03.2023 on 20.03.2023 and they have filed the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 03.10.2023. In the normal course these appeals should have been filed by 19.05.2023 which is 60 days from the date of communication of OIOs and Commissioner (Appeals) has discretion to condone the delay up to 30 days only beyond this period. In the present case the appellants have filed the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) after more than 6 months from the date of communication of OIOs. Therefore Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in dismissing the appeals on time bar itself without going into merit. There are no scope or reason to interfere with the Orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal dismissed.

2015 (4) TMI 422 - HC

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) has the authority to condone delays beyond the statutory limit prescribed under Section 128 of the Customs Act.
Whether the typographical error in the memorandum of appeal affects the validity of the appeal process.
Whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain appeals filed beyond the statutory period of limitation.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Authority to Condon Delays Beyond Statutory Limit

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 128 of the Customs Act allows appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision or order, with a provision to condone delays for an additional 30 days if sufficient cause is shown. The Supreme Court in M/s Singh Enterprises held that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone delays beyond this period.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal reiterated that the Commissioner (Appeals) is a creature of statute and is bound by the statutory provisions, lacking the authority to condone delays beyond the prescribed period.
Key Evidence and Findings: The appellants filed their appeals after more than six months from the communication of the Orders-in-Original, exceeding the permissible period for condonation.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the statutory limits strictly, finding no basis to condone the delay as the appeals were filed well beyond the permissible period.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellants' argument for condonation based on satisfactory explanation was rejected, as the statutory framework does not permit condonation beyond 90 days.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) correctly dismissed the appeals as time-barred.

Issue 2: Typographical Error in Memorandum of Appeal

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The legal framework does not specifically address the impact of typographical errors in appeal documents.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal accepted the appellants' explanation that the reference to "Additional Commissioner" was a typographical error and proceeded with the case.
Key Evidence and Findings: The error was acknowledged by the appellants and accepted by the Tribunal as a non-substantive mistake.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal treated the error as harmless, allowing the appeal to proceed on its merits regarding the timing issue.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: There were no significant competing arguments on this point, as the error was accepted as typographical.
Conclusions: The typographical error did not affect the substantive outcome of the appeal process.

Issue 3: Tribunal's Jurisdiction Over Time-Barred Appeals

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited by the statutory provisions under which it operates, as established in multiple precedents including Commissioner of Customs-II Vs Poonam Courier Pvt Ltd.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that it is bound by statutory limits and lacks the jurisdiction to entertain appeals filed beyond the statutory period.
Key Evidence and Findings: The appeals were filed significantly beyond the statutory period, and the Tribunal found no legal basis to entertain them.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the statutory limitations strictly, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeals.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellants' reliance on other cases where delays were condoned was distinguished based on differing facts and legal contexts.
Conclusions: The Tribunal dismissed the appeals due to lack of jurisdiction to condone the excessive delay.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The appellate authority has no power to allow the appeal to be presented beyond the period of 30 days. The language used makes the position clear that the legislature intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning delay only up to 30 days after the expiry of 60 days which is the normal period for preferring appeal."
Core principles established: The Tribunal reiterated the principle that statutory bodies are bound by the limits of their statutory authority and cannot extend jurisdiction beyond what is expressly provided by statute.
Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeals as time-barred, confirming that neither the Commissioner (Appeals) nor the Tribunal has the authority to condone delays beyond the statutory period.

← Previous Next →