Limitation under customs law runs from actual communication of the order, not mere website upload, and delay may remain condonable.

Limitation under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 runs from communication of the decision or order to the aggrieved person, with a further condonable period of thirty days. The Tribunal treated the order as communicated when the copy was supplied on 12.01.2018, not when it was merely uploaded on the departmental website, and relied on RTI-based material as supporting evidence of the actual communication date. A website upload, without a certified public document, was not enough to fix the date of communication. On that basis, the delay fell within the condonable period and the rejection on limitation was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was barred by limitation and whether the date of communication of the order was 12.01.2018.

Analysis: Limitation under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 runs from the date of communication of the decision or order to the person aggrieved, with a further condonable period of thirty days. The record showed that the order was communicated when the copy was supplied on 12.01.2018, and not on the date of mere upload on the departmental website. The Tribunal also treated the RTI-based material as supporting evidence of the actual communication date and held that a website upload, without a certified public document, could not be presumed to be the date of communication. On that basis, the delay was only within the condonable period.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to be within limitation and the rejection on limitation was unsustainable.

---