TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Customs Act: Jurisdiction upheld, appeal dismissed as time-barred. Objections overruled.</h1> <h3>NB. FOOTWEAR Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI</h3> NB. FOOTWEAR Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI - 2007 (209) E.L.T. 102 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues:1. Jurisdictional objection raised against Deputy Commissioner of Customs.2. Appeal dismissed as time-barred due to delay in filing.3. Discrepancy in computation of limitation period for filing the appeal.Analysis:Issue 1: Jurisdictional ObjectionThe appellants contested the Deputy Commissioner of Customs' competence to demand duty under Customs Notification No. 32/97. A new ground was added to the appeal, questioning the Deputy Commissioner's authority to impose duty. The appellants relied on Rule 8 of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty) Rules, 1996, while the SDR argued that Section 28 of the Customs Act supersedes any conflicting rules. The Tribunal found an inconsistency between Rule 8 and Section 28, emphasizing that rules must align with the Act. Consequently, the objection was overruled, affirming the Deputy Commissioner's jurisdiction under Section 28.Issue 2: Time-barred AppealThe appeal was deemed time-barred by the appellate authority due to exceeding the condonable delay period under Section 128 of the Customs Act. The appellants argued that the delay was within the prescribed limit as they received the Order-in-Original on 26-7-2004. However, the appellate authority calculated the delay from the date of display on the Customs House notice board (12-8-2003), not the date of communication. Citing a previous tribunal decision, the appellants contended that the date of communication should determine the limitation period. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that notice board display constituted communication, making the appeal untimely even with the later receipt of the order. Referring to legal precedents, it was concluded that the delay was not condonable.Final Decision:The Tribunal upheld the Deputy Commissioner's jurisdiction to demand duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act and dismissed the appeal as time-barred due to the delay in filing, which exceeded the condonable period. The decision was pronounced in open court, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
