2015 (4) TMI 807 - AT - Customs

Appeals Allowed Despite Time Bar; Appeal Filing Date Key

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the rejection of the appeals as time-barred by the Commissioner. It held that the appeal was filed within ... Challenge to assessment order - appeal made to Commissioner (Appeals) - Bar of limitation - Held that:- Following decision of REDINGTON INDIA LIMITED Versus COMMR. OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), CHENNAI [2007 (1) TMI 190 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS] - appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) within the condonable period. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide afresh the application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:- Appeal against rejection of appeals as time-barredAnalysis:The appellant, a Public Sector Undertaking, filed Bill of Entry declaring the value based on a Highsea Sales Agreement. Subsequently, it was discovered that the value was wrongly declared, resulting in excess duty payment. The appeals against the assessment order were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) but were rejected as time-barred. The Commissioner held that the appeals were beyond the condonable period.Upon review, the Tribunal noted that the Bills of Entry were filed on 16.4.2005, assessed on 28.4.2005, and communicated to the appellant on 5.5.2005. The appellant paid the duty on the same day. The appeal was filed on 3.8.2005. The Commissioner deemed the appeal beyond the condonable 30-day period from the assessment date of 28.4.2005. However, the appellant argued that the communication date of the out of charge order and the Bill of Entry on 5.5.2005 should be considered as the date of communication of the order.The Tribunal examined the Customs Act provisions, noting that appeals must be filed within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision or order, with a possible extension of 30 days under certain conditions. Referring to the Madras High Court case law, it emphasized the importance of effective communication as per Section 153 of the Act. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner's interpretation of the assessment date as the critical event, emphasizing the necessity of proper communication for appeal timelines.The Tribunal distinguished a previous case cited by the Respondent, highlighting that the appeal in the present case was filed within 90 days from the date of out of charge. Citing the Madras High Court decision, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal was filed within the condonable period. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision on the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appeals were allowed by way of remand.