Tribunal dismisses appeal for delay in filing under Customs Act, 1962. Commissioner lacks jurisdiction for condonation.

The appeal regarding the condonation of a 31-day delay in filing under section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 was dismissed by the Tribunal. Citing precedents such as Singh Enterprises, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked jurisdiction to condone delays beyond the statutory period of 90 days. Emphasizing the importance of adhering to the statutory limits, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal u/s 128 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Summary:

The primary issue in the present appeal is the condonation of a 31-day delay in filing the appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the grounds that it was filed after the permissible period of 90 days as stipulated u/s 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant received the impugned order on 03.01.2019 and filed the appeal on 04.04.2019, exceeding the statutory limit by 31 days.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises [2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.)] held that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and the Tribunal, being creatures of statute, have no jurisdiction to condone delays beyond the statutorily provided period. The appeal must be filed within 60 days, and a further 30 days can be condoned if sufficient cause is shown. This ruling excludes the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning delays beyond the permissible period.

Further, the Delhi Bench in Shambhu Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2021 (378) E.L.T. 208 (Tri.-Del.)] reiterated that the Commissioner (Appeals) could only condone a delay of up to 30 days beyond the initial 60 days, emphasizing the statutory limit.

Additionally, the Delhi High Court in Uttam Sucrotech International (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [2011 (264) E.L.T. 502 (Del.)] confirmed that the appellate authority has no power to condone delays beyond the 30-day extension after the initial 60 days.

Given these precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) acted within the legal framework by dismissing the appeal as time-barred. The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

---