TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Customs appeal dismissed for time-barred filing; Commissioner lacks power to condone delays under Customs Act.</h1> <h3>M/s. Pams Industries Versus The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)</h3> M/s. Pams Industries Versus The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) - TMI Issues:Appeal challenging order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding time-barred appeal to Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).Analysis:The appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 challenges the order dated 7th October, 2014 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The main question raised is whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in dismissing the appellant's appeal as time-barred, despite the appellant claiming sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal.Legal Provisions:Section 128(1) of the Act provides a time limit of 60 days to file an appeal from the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), with a further period of 30 days for filing an appeal on showing sufficient cause, which can be condoned by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). In this case, the appellant filed an appeal almost 6 years and 8 months after the order, leading to its dismissal by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on 4th March, 2013.Decision and Precedents:The Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, citing a Supreme Court decision in Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, 2008, which held that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone the delay beyond the aggregate period of 90 days as specified in Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, similar to Section 128(1) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal emphasized that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to proceedings under the Excise and Customs Act. A previous decision by the Court in Parsi Dairy Farm Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, 2015, also supported the dismissal of the appeal based on the special nature of Central Excise and Customs laws.Conclusion:Given the binding precedent set by the Supreme Court and the specific provisions of the Customs Act, the Court found that the question raised did not present a substantial legal issue warranting consideration. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the Tribunal regarding the time-barred appeal to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
