Limitation for appeal depends on timely communication of speaking orders; delayed despatch justified treating the appeals as within time.

Where speaking orders are passed earlier but despatched to the importers much later, limitation for appeal cannot be computed merely from finalisation of the bills of entry if the orders were not timely communicated. On the facts noted, the appellate authority treated the appeals as filed within time because the speaking orders dated 1996 were despatched only in 1998, as reflected by the despatch numbers on the original orders. The Commissioner (Appeals) was therefore not justified in rejecting the appeals as time-barred. The rejection was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration on merits after giving the importers a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) were barred by limitation in the absence of timely communication of the speaking orders, and whether the matter required remand for consideration on merits.

Analysis: The appellate authority found that the original adjudicating authority had passed speaking orders in 1996 but had despatched them to the importers only in 1998, as shown by the despatch numbers on the original orders. In these circumstances, the appellants could not be non-suited on the footing that they ought to have appealed earlier merely on the basis of the assessment finalisation in the bills of entry. The appeals were therefore treated as having been filed within time under the appellate limitation provision.

Conclusion: The appeals were held to be within limitation, the rejection by the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for de novo decision on merits after giving the appellants a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

---