9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .No.28909 of 2016 has been filed to assail the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), dated 06.07.2016. 2. As is obvious, upon perusal of the impugned orders that the order dated 04.02.2016, is an order on merits, whereas, the order dated 06.07.2016, whereby, the petitioner's appeal was dismissed, is not an order on merits, but is based on the fact that the appeal preferred was filed beyond limitation, as prescribed under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short "the Act"). 3. It is a common ground that in view of the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), the order-in-original dated 04.02.2016, would stand merged with the said order passed in appeal. 3.1. Therefore, in these circumstances, all that I a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oncerned Adjudicating Officer, was divested of his power to adjudicate the matter, in view of the Circular No.5/2016-Customs, dated 09.02.2016, issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (in short the Board). 4.5. As indicated right at the outset, these are matters pertaining to the merits of the case. 4.6. I must note, at this stage, that it is the stand of the respondents that the Adjudicating Officer had time to complete the pending proceedings till 31.12.2016. 4.7. This stand is taken by the respondents, based on Circular No.4/2016-Customs, dated 09.02.2016. 5. Continuing with the narrative, the record shows that the petitioner, instead of filing an appeal, lodged a letter dated 28.03.2016, with the Commissioner of Customs, C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ground that the appeal filed, was beyond limitation. 7. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.07.2016, the petitioner, as indicated at the outset, preferred the captioned writ petition. 8. The issue, which arises for consideration, is, as to whether in the given facts and circumstances, this Court should treat the representation dated 28.03.2016, or, the representation dated 27.04.2016, as an appeal in the eyes of law. 9. Mr.G.Derrick Sam, who appears for the petitioner, says that if, not the representation dated 28.03.2016, then, surely, second representation dated 27.04.2016, should be treated as an appeal, as it was lodged before the correct forum, i.e., before respondent No.2, notwithstanding the fact that it was not in the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the representations made by the petitioner as appeals filed to assail the order-in-original. 12.1. A perusal of the representations dated 28.03.2016 and 27.04.2016, would show that the Director of the petitioner did convey to the respondents that the impugned order-in-original should be withdrawn. 12.2. Furthermore, a reading of the two communications would show that while the communication, dated 28.03.2016 was addressed to the Commissioner of Customs, the second communication dated 27.04.2016, was sent via e-mail to respondent No.2, i.e., Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). 13. The fact that respondent No.1, i.e., the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Special Valuation Branch, vide a letter dated 21.04.2016, had directed the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the letter dated 25th June, 1970. In fact, in the petition as originally filed, the right to claim total exemption from sales tax was not based on the plea of promissory estoppel which was introduced only by way of amendment. Moreover, it must be remembered that there is no presumption that every person knows the law. It is often said that every one is presumed to know the law, but that is not a correct statement: there is no such maxim known to the law. Over a hundred and thirty years ago, Maule, J., pointed out in Martindala v. Faulkner, (1846) 2 CB 706 "There is no presumption in this country that every person knows the law: it would be contrary to common sense and reason if it were so". Scrutton, also once said: "It is impossible to kno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereafter, additional grounds of challenge. 14.3. In this case also grounds were added by the petitioner with the permission of respondent No.2. Furthermore, ultimately, via the impugned order, respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal, not on merits, but on the ground that it was lodged after the period of limitation. 14.4. To my mind, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the approach adopted appears to be pedantic, and consequently, resulted in emasculating the petitioner of its right to have the matter decided on merits. 15. Having said so, it is not suggested that limitation ought not to be adhered to, when required. Statute of limitation is a statute of repose. Limitation is put in place by the Legislature to put a quietus to dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
