2013 (11) TMI 1397 - AT - Customs

Appeal dismissed for delay in filing & lack of documents. Emphasis on timely appeals & compliance.

M/s RAHUL CRAFT Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

The appeal against the Order-in-Appeal for waiving pre-deposit was rejected due to delay in filing and failure to provide required documents. The ... Recovery of duty drawback for non-submission of proof of sale proceeds in foreign currency in stipulated period - Condonation of delay for filing an appeal before Commission (Appeals) - service of order - Denial of refund claim - Bar of limitation - Delay in delivery of order - Appellant claims that they have received the order throguh RTI - Held that:- Order-in-Original was posted to be delivered in time and there has been delay in filling the appeal and accordingly he held that the present appeal has been filed beyond the prescribed time for filing the same, thus it is hit by bar of limitation - unless the contrary is proved, service shall be deemed to have been properly effected when a letter properly addressed, pre paid and posted by registered post - Following decision of Miles India Ltd. Vs Assistant Collector [1984 (4) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and Collector or Central Excise Vs. Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills [1988 (8) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], prima facie case is not in favor of assessee. - appellant directed to make full pre-deposit - stay denied. Issues:1. Stay application against Order-in-Appeal for waiving pre-deposit.2. Non-submission of Bank Realisation Certificate (BRC) and proof of extension.3. Recovery order under Customs Act and imposition of penalty.4. Delay in filing appeal and non-receipt of Order-in-Original.5. Examination of Customs Act provisions for appeal timelines.6. Service of order under Customs Act and legal precedents.7. Rejection of appeal on the grounds of limitation and lack of merit.8. Requirement for depositing the claimed amount and penalty.Analysis:1. The appellant filed a stay application against an Order-in-Appeal for waiving pre-deposit. The exporter was asked to submit the Bank Realisation Certificate (BRC) and proof of extension, which were not provided. The Adjudicating Authority ordered recovery of dues under Customs Act and imposed a penalty for non-compliance.2. The appeal was filed late, and no application for Condonation of Delay was submitted. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the Order-in-Original was dispatched to the old address of the appellant, which was deemed served as per Customs Law. The appellant's argument of non-receipt was dismissed.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) examined the Customs Act provisions for appeal timelines and cited legal precedents to support the decision. The judgment emphasized the statutory period of limitation binding on Tribunals and Customs authorities.4. The appellant's plea of being informed late about the order was rejected, and the Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the appeal was time-barred. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper service under the Customs Act and legal presumptions regarding service by registered post.5. The appeal was rejected on the grounds of being time-barred, and the appellant failed to prove that the balance of convenience favored them for waiving pre-deposit. The order required the appellant to deposit the claimed amount and penalty within a specified time frame.6. The judgment emphasized compliance with statutory timelines and the legal principles governing service of orders under the Customs Act. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of the facts and legal precedents, leading to the rejection of the appeal due to limitation issues and lack of merit.7. The appellant's arguments were carefully considered, but the Commissioner (Appeals) found no merit in the submission. The judgment highlighted the legal position regarding limitation periods and the binding nature of statutory provisions on Tribunals and Customs authorities.8. Ultimately, the appellant was directed to deposit the full claimed amount along with the penalty within a specified time frame. The judgment emphasized the importance of compliance with legal requirements and noted the deadline for fulfilling the deposit obligation.