2018 (5) TMI 1427 - AT - Customs

Appeal Dismissed for Late Filing, Legal Limits Applied

The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal for condonation of delay in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed period, upholding the decision of the ... Condonation of delay - power of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay - limitation for filing appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 - appeal time-barredCondonation of delay - power of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay - limitation for filing appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 - appeal time-barred - Appeal dismissed as time-barred because the Commissioner (Appeals) correctly refused to condone delay beyond his statutory power. - HELD THAT: - The appellant filed appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) after a delay exceeding the 60-day limitation period and sought condonation of an additional 66 days beyond the further 30-day extension. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that under the statutory scheme he may condone delay only for a further period of 30 days and therefore had no power to allow the additional 66 days; accordingly the appeal was dismissed as time-barred. The Tribunal, on review, accepted the Commissioner (Appeals)'s construction of the limitation provision and reliance on the Apex Court's decision in Singh Enterprises Vs. CCE , which holds that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone delay beyond 30 days. Applying that ratio to the facts, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order and upheld the dismissal of the appeal for want of jurisdiction to entertain the belated appeal.Appeal dismissed as time-barred; impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order that the appeal was not maintainable being beyond the condonable period; no interference was warranted in view of settled law that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone delay beyond 30 days. Issues: Appeal for condonation of delay in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed period.Analysis:1. The appellant filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of copiers, which led to suspicion of undervaluation by the department.2. An independent Chartered Engineer recommended a higher value for the goods, which was accepted by the importer.3. Lower authority ordered confiscation of goods under Customs Act, 1962, for violation of Foreign Trade Policy, with an option to redeem on payment of a fine.4. Penalty was also imposed on the appellant for the confiscated items.5. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) seeking condonation of delay of 66 days in filing the appeal.6. The Commissioner(Appeals) observed that the appeal was time-barred as it was filed after 132 days from the receipt of the impugned order.7. The Commissioner(Appeals) cited Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, which allows a maximum of 60 days for filing an appeal, extendable by a further 30 days under sufficient cause.8. The Commissioner(Appeals) found the additional 66 days sought for condonation beyond his power to allow, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as non-maintainable.9. The appellant did not appear, but written submissions were made by the advocate on record.10. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner(Appeals) citing the precedent set by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. CCE [2008(221) ELT 163 (SC)], which restricts the power of condonation beyond 30 days.In conclusion, the appeal for condonation of delay in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed period was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal, upholding the decision of the Commissioner(Appeals) based on the legal limitations set by the Customs Act and the precedent established by the Hon'ble Apex Court.