2020 (7) TMI 61 - AT - Customs

Appeal Dismissed: Upheld on Limitation Grounds, Emphasizing Timelines & Justifications

M/s. Oriental Metal Works Versus Commissioner of Customs, Delhi

The Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal due to limitation grounds, emphasizing compliance with statutory timelines and the need for valid ... Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Time Limitation - appellant had challenged the order of 4th December, 2012 before Commissioner (Appeals) but after a delay of more than 90 days from the date of order - Section 35 of CEA, 1944 - HELD THAT:- The appellant had challenged the order of 4th December, 2012 before Commissioner (Appeals) but after a delay of more than 90 days from the date of order. It is apparent from the appeal that the Order-in-Original was received by the appellant on the date of order itself, as it is mentioned in para (xii) of the appeal. The delay despite admitted receipt of the order is opined to be highly unreasonable. The only ground taken for the said delay is the change of lawyer. The said ground is not supported by any document nor even the affidavit of any of the lawyers to this effect has been filed. Otherwise also no circumstance has been explained by the appellant which would have prohibited him to coordinate among the lawyers or to engage the another lawyer well within time. In the given circumstances the sole reason quoted for such delay is definitely not sufficient to explain the same - Commissioner (Appeals) has committed no error while dismissing the appeal on the score of limitation itself. The Commissioner (Appeals) has a statutory mandate in view of Section 35 of CEA, 1944 to not to accept appeal if filed beyond 30 days of the expiry of the period of 60 days from the date of receipt of order - The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Singh Enterprises vs CCE, Jamshedpur [2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] while upholding the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on ground of limitation. There is no error in the order under challenge. While filing the appeal before this Tribunal also, appeal was filed after 1536 number of days of the order under challenge with the same reason for delay as was taken before the Commissioner (Appeals) alongwith an application for condonation of delay - the reason quoted is not sufficient to explain such a substantial delay. The condonation of delay application filed with the impugned appeal stands dismissed. Issues involved:Challenge of order on grounds of limitation, mis-declaration of goods, dismissal of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) due to delay, statutory mandate of Commissioner (Appeals) regarding appeal timelines, application for condonation of delay.Analysis:The appellant challenged an order dismissing their appeal on the ground of limitation, which was based on mis-declaration of goods in shipping bills claiming drawback on brass items. The appellant admitted the mistake of loading items other than brass due to new staff error. The original adjudicating authority proposed confiscation and penalty, leading to the appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal and condonation request due to delay beyond 90 days, citing statutory limitations under Section 35 of Central Excise Act, 1994. The appellant argued that the delay was due to change of lawyer and explained the presence of brass-polished zinc items. However, the Tribunal found the delay unreasonable, lacking proper documentation or justification for the change in legal representation.The Tribunal highlighted the statutory mandate of the Commissioner (Appeals) to reject appeals filed beyond specified timelines, referencing a Supreme Court case emphasizing the need for a sufficient cause for delay. The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the appellant were insufficient to justify the substantial delay in filing the appeal. Despite the appellant's application for condonation of delay, the Tribunal dismissed it along with the appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the need for valid justifications for delays in legal proceedings.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal based on limitation grounds, emphasizing the importance of complying with statutory timelines and providing adequate justifications for delays in filing appeals. The appellant's reasons for delay were deemed insufficient, leading to the rejection of the appeal and the condonation of delay application.