9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue a direction especially when the Statute does not empower the second respondent to condone the delay for more than 30 days. That apart, it has been held in several decisions that the Writ Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, cannot extend the period of limitation as prescribed under the Statute. Therefore, the only option available to the petitioners is to prefer appeals to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal as against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) - appeal not maintainable and is dismissed - liberty granted to the petitioners to file appeals as against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). - Writ Petition Nos.36582 to 36587 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs' appeals are time barred for the reason that the mandatory pre-deposit of 7.5% in terms of Section 129E of the Customs Act has not been made by the petitioners within the time permissible. 5. The only disputed fact is that the Orders-in-Original were passed on 17.12.2015 and received by the petitioners on 22.12.2015/21.12.2015. The Statute provides a period of limitation of 60 days to file appeals. However, the petitioners sent letters dated 16.2.2016 as if they are appeals. The office of the second respondent returned the same by a communication to the petitioners dated 19.2.2016 stating that the papers sent by the petitioners cannot be considered as appeals, because the same are incomplete and are not in proper format and that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Rules, the proof of predeposit of 7.5% of the duty/penalty in the form of TR6 Challan has to be filed along with the appeal papers at the time of admission of the appeals. Therefore, the petitioners were advised to effect predeposit of 7.5% and produce proof in order to enable the office of the second respondent to register the appeals. After this communication, after about one month i.e on 13.6.2016, the petitioners effected predeposit and produced proof of payment of such predeposits in the form of TR6 challans before the second respondent on 14.6.2016. However, as on 14.6.2016, the second respondent lost the power to entertain the appeals because the Statute provided only for a condonable period of 30 days over and above the period o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd sought to impress upon this Court by contending that the Tribunal directed three opportunities/reminders be given so as to ensure that the predeposits are being done. 13. In my view, such a circular would not be a reason for this Court to issue a direction especially when the Statute does not empower the second respondent to condone the delay for more than 30 days. That apart, it has been held in several decisions that the Writ Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, cannot extend the period of limitation as prescribed under the Statute. Therefore, the only option available to the petitioners is to prefer appeals to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal as against the orders pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
