Department's delay condonation rejected for cross objections filed 2+ years after receiving appeal notice under Section 129A(4)

CESTAT New Delhi rejected the delay condonation application for filing cross objections. The respondent received notice of appeal on 03.03.2020 through registered post and service at Chief Commissioner's office, triggering the 45-day period under Section 129A(4) of Customs Act. The department claimed non-availability of appeal copy in their file and receipt only on 21.07.2022. CESTAT found no satisfactory explanation for the enormous delay and rejected the application, holding that proper service had occurred as per Section 153(1) of Customs Act.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing Cross Objections.
2. Compliance with the prescribed procedure for filing Cross Objections and Delay Condonation Application.
3. Assessment of refund claim and unjust enrichment.

Summary:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Cross Objections:
The department filed Cross Objections on 07.11.2022, with a delay condonation application for 989 days. The Tribunal noted that the notice under section 129A(4) of the Customs Act was served on 03.03.2020, and the statutory period for filing Cross Objections expired on 18.04.2020. The Supreme Court's order in suo moto proceedings extended the limitation period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, making the new deadline 15.04.2022. The department failed to file within this period and provided unsatisfactory explanations for the delay. The Tribunal rejected the Delay Condonation Application and dismissed the Cross Objections.

2. Compliance with Prescribed Procedure:
The appellant argued that the Cross Objections and Delay Condonation Application were not filed per the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982. Specifically, the documents were signed and verified by the Deputy Commissioner instead of the Principal Commissioner, and no specific authorization was given. The Tribunal did not address this objection as the Delay Condonation Application was already rejected.

3. Assessment of Refund Claim and Unjust Enrichment:
The appellant imported mobile phones and paid 6% Additional Duty of Customs, later claiming a refund based on a notification allowing a reduced rate of 1%. The Deputy Commissioner sanctioned the refund but credited it to the Consumer Welfare Fund, citing the appellant's failure to prove that the incidence of duty was not passed on to buyers. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, noting the lack of supporting documents with the Chartered Accountant's certificate. The appellant's appeal to the Tribunal challenged this decision, but the focus remained on procedural issues regarding the Cross Objections and delay condonation.

---