2016 (1) TMI 1208 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants appeal, allows delay, and orders stay on license revocation

Bombino Express Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai

The Tribunal accepted the appellant's explanation for the delay of 288 days in filing the appeal, citing the liberal approach of the Supreme Court. It ... Maintainability of appeal - till date the representation has not been addressed to by the Chief Commissioner or the Principle Commissioner hence they have filed this appeal before this Tribunal - whether an appeal lies before this tribunal or otherwise? - Held that: - On plain reading of Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, we find that as the order has been passed by the Commissioner of Customs as an adjudicating authority is also defined under Section2(1) of Customs Act,1962 which means an authority competent to pass any order or decision under this Act. It is very clear from the reading of the regulations that they were enacted under the powers of Section 157 of the Customs Act, 1962 for furtherance of activity under the Said Act - this appeal lies before this Tribunal - appeal maintained - decided in favor of appellant. Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal, jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear the appeal, application for early hearing and stay petition.Condonation of Delay: The appellant filed for condonation of delay of 288 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant argued that the representation was made to the Chief Commissioner of Customs within the time frame specified in Regulation 14 of Courier Imports & Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998. The delay was attributed to the bonafide belief that the representation should be made before the Chief Commissioner. The Tribunal referred to Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, and held that the appeal lies before the Tribunal as the order was passed by the Commissioner of Customs, an adjudicating authority under the Act. Citing the Supreme Court's liberal approach in accepting explanations for delay, the Tribunal accepted the explanation furnished by the appellant and condoned the delay.Jurisdiction of the Tribunal: The Tribunal examined whether the appeal lies before them. It was observed that the regulations were enacted under the powers of Section 157 of the Customs Act, 1962, for the furtherance of activities under the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal falls within its jurisdiction as the order was passed by the Commissioner of Customs as an adjudicating authority. The Tribunal also noted the appellant's diligent representation before the Chief Commissioner under a bonafide belief, further supporting the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear the appeal.Application for Early Hearing and Stay Petition: The appellant requested early hearing of the appeal and stay on the revocation of the courier license. The Tribunal directed the Registry to list the application for stay and early hearing on a specified date for disposal. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of balancing the rights of both parties and ensuring substantial justice while considering such requests. Ultimately, the Tribunal ordered the condonation of delay, accepted the appeal, and directed further proceedings regarding the stay and early hearing application.This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the issues of condonation of delay, jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the application for early hearing and stay petition, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case and the Tribunal's decision.