Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Revenue's appeals were barred by limitation under Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962 and whether any substantial question of law arose for consideration.
Analysis: The appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) were rejected as time-barred because the review orders and the ensuing appeals were not shown to have been filed within the statutory periods. The Court held that the burden lay on the Department to establish compliance with the prescribed limitation, and where the fact-finding authority had recorded that the requisite dates could not be authenticated and the delay was non-condonable, no roving enquiry or re-appreciation of facts could be undertaken in proceedings under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal had affirmed the Commissioner (Appeals) on the same ground, and the findings on limitation were not shown to be erroneous.
Conclusion: The limitation objection was upheld, and no substantial question of law arose. The appeals failed.
Final Conclusion: The rejection of the Revenue's appeals on limitation was confirmed, and the Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings on maintainability.
Ratio Decidendi: Where statutory limitation is not shown to have been complied with and the findings on delay are concurrent and factual, the appellate court will not re-open the issue or undertake a fresh factual enquiry in second appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.