2009 (1) TMI 264 - AT - Customs

Appeals filed late due to office mistake deemed timely; diligence rewarded, orders set aside.

MARUTI UDYOG LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA

The Tribunal held that despite appeals being received after the time limit, they were considered filed within time as they were dispatched to the wrong ... Filing of an Appeal - wrong jurisdiction - period of limitation - held that - time spent before the wrong forum should not be taken into consideration while calculating the limitation. In the present case the counsel has admitted the mistake on the part of their office in dispatching the appeal to wrong forum for which the assessee should not be made to suffer. We also note that the appellants have been pursuing the case at each level and there can be no reasons or motive for them not to challenge the order well in time. In fact it was the duty of Commissioner of Customs Kandla to transfer the papers to the appropriate office, on receipt of the same - the appeal papers having been received by the Commissioner's office in time, though received by Commissioner (Appeals) subsequently, have to be held as having been filed within time. Issues:1. Jurisdiction to condone delay in filing appeals.2. Dispatch of appeal papers to the wrong office.3. Consideration of limitation period in filing appeals.4. Applicability of settled principles in similar cases.Analysis:1. The judgment revolves around the jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the delay in filing appeals. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeals as barred by limitation, citing the date of receipt of the impugned order by the appellant and the subsequent filing of appeals in the office. The Tribunal noted that it was not a simple case of late filing, as the appeals were dispatched to the wrong office by mistake.2. The appellant argued that the appeals were rightly addressed to Commissioner (Appeals) but were wrongly dispatched to another office. The appellant provided evidence of dispatch through a courier service and maintained that the mistake was inadvertent. The Tribunal examined the documentary evidence and concluded that the appeals were dispatched to the wrong office due to an error on the part of the counsel's office, absolving the assessee from suffering the consequences.3. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions, such as Reckitt & Benckiser (India) Ltd. v. CCE & C, emphasizing that appeals filed in the wrong office but received after the time limit should be considered as filed within time. The Tribunal highlighted that the time spent before the wrong forum should not be included in calculating the limitation period. The appellant's diligence in pursuing the case at all levels further supported the decision to set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order.4. Based on the settled principles from previous cases, the Tribunal held that the appeal papers, though received by Commissioner (Appeals) after the time limit, were deemed filed within time. The mistake in dispatching the appeals to the wrong office did not warrant penalizing the appellant, especially considering the duty of the office to transfer papers to the appropriate authority promptly. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded all five appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits.