Limitation under Customs law bars late appeals, and an alleged error in the original order does not itself make it jurisdictionally void.

An appeal filed beyond the maximum condonable period under the Customs Act could not be entertained, because the appellate authority had no power to extend limitation beyond that statutory limit. The challenge that the original confiscation and penalty order was without jurisdiction failed, since an erroneous order does not become a jurisdictional nullity merely because its merits are disputed. A further objection based on the absence of a fresh show-cause notice was not entertained because it had not been raised earlier, and the revisional power under the then-applicable customs provision was also noted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate authority could reject the appeal as time-barred when the appellant contended that the original confiscation and penalty order was without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The appeal before the Board was filed beyond the condonable period prescribed by Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the Board had no power to extend limitation beyond that period. The contention that the original order was without jurisdiction was rejected, as an erroneous order does not become a jurisdictional nullity merely because the appellant disputes the merits of the finding. The further ground regarding fresh show-cause notice was not entertained as it had not been raised earlier, and in any event the Collector had revisional power under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 as it then stood.

Conclusion: The appeal was rightly dismissed as time-barred, and the challenge to the original order on the ground of lack of jurisdiction failed.

Final Conclusion: The decision confirms that expiry of the statutory appeal period bars consideration of the appeal, and a merely erroneous order does not automatically deprive the appellate authority of the power to reject the appeal on limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal filed beyond the maximum condonable period cannot be entertained, and the existence of an alleged error in the underlying order does not by itself convert that order into one passed without jurisdiction.

---