9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 5-11-2004 wherein the appellants appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the question of limitation. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are : The appellants imported stock lot of Ceramic wall tiles and filed the Bill of Entry for the assessment by declaring the value bf US $ 1.05 per sq. mtr. along with i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive any appealable order. Thereafter, the appellants preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against the said Bill of Entry. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 5-11-2004, did not go into the merits and dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation itself. 3. The learned advocate appearing for the appellants I submits that, the Revenue authorities should have res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants for filing the appeal. 5. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. I find that the appellants appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation. The provisions of Section 128 of the Customs Act do not permit the appellate authority to condone any period beyond 30 days after the mandatory period of 60 days of appeal. In short, the Commissioner (Appeals) could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther alternative, but to go in appeal against the said assessed Bill of Entry. Failure to do so, will be detrimental, at their own Cost. In this case, the appellants contention that they were ignorant of the law is ill-founded because their Advocates Solicitors had requested for the speaking order in respect of the assessed Bill of Entry. 6. In view of the above circumstances, I find no merit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
