2025 (3) TMI 638 - AT - Customs

Appeal dismissed for exceeding 90-day limit without Board sanction under Section 129D(3) Customs Act

CESTAT Chennai dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with time limitations under Section 129D(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal was filed beyond ... Dismissal of appeal on the ground of time limitation - sufficient cause for delay or not - appeal passed beyond the period of 90 days prescribed under Section 129D(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- The proviso to Section 129D(3) mandates that the Board may, on sufficient cause being shown extend the said period(the period for passing the review order) by another thirty days and even before this Tribunal the appellant has not evidenced that the appellant has shown sufficient cause to the Board and had obtained the sanction of the Board as mandated in the proviso to Section 129D(3) ibid for preferring the appeal before the Commissioner Appeals beyond the statutorily prescribed period provided in sub-section (3) of Section 129D. Further, the appellant has also not evidenced that in the absence of any such order of the Board providing the extension sought on sufficient cause being shown, the appellant had filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 20 days stating justifiable reasons before the Commissioner Appeals. As can be seen from the grounds of the appeal before this Tribunal reproduced supra, the appeal is only on the grounds that the rejection of the appeal on the ground of limitation by the Lower Appellate Authority would be a loss for the Revenue and the Appellate Authority has not decided the case on merits. There is no explanation or justification provided for not adhering to the mandate of proviso to Section 129(D)(3) nor any explanation provided for not preferring an application for condonation of delay for filing the review order beyond the period prescribed in Section 129 D(3) before the Commissioner of Appeals in the absence of any sanction obtained/permission accorded by the Board as per proviso to Section 129D(3). In this case, neither has any evidence been let in that an application showing sufficient cause has been preferred to the Board to extend the period for filing of review order nor has any such order of the Board extending the period for filing of the review order been produced. It has also not been shown that the appellant had preferred any application for condonation of non- filing of the extension order of the Board or seeking condonation of delay of 20 days in passing the review order, in the absence of such sanction/permission of the Board before the learned Appellate Authority. The appellant has no right to any preferential consideration to get its delay or non-compliance of the mandate of law condoned mechanically and without adhering to the mandate of law. Conclusion - The appellant has no right to any preferential consideration to get its delay or non-compliance of the mandate of law condoned mechanically and without adhering to the mandate of law. In view of our aforesaid discussions, there are no justifiable reason shown to interfere with the impugned Order-in-Appeal of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and the same is upheld. Appeal dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal question considered in this judgment was whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs was time-barred under Section 129D(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to a delay in issuing the Review Order. The Tribunal also considered whether the appeal should be remanded for a decision on merits despite the procedural lapse.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant Legal Framework and PrecedentsThe primary legal framework involved is Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962, which mandates that a Review Order must be passed within three months from the date of communication of the Order-in-Original. The proviso to Section 129D(3) allows for an extension of this period by another thirty days upon sufficient cause being shown and approval by the Board. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's interpretation in CCE, Delhi III v KAP Cones, which emphasized the necessity of obtaining Board approval for any delay beyond the statutory period.Court's Interpretation and ReasoningThe Tribunal held that the delay in issuing the Review Order was not justified as no application for condonation of delay or Board approval was presented. The Tribunal emphasized the mandatory nature of the statutory timeline and the requirement for Board approval to extend this timeline, as elucidated by the Supreme Court in similar statutory provisions under the Central Excise Act.Key Evidence and FindingsThe Tribunal found that the Review Order was issued 20 days beyond the prescribed period of three months. The appellant did not produce any evidence of Board approval for the delay or any application for condonation of delay, which was necessary according to the proviso to Section 129D(3).Application of Law to FactsThe Tribunal applied the statutory requirements of Section 129D(3) and its proviso to the facts, concluding that the appeal was time-barred due to the failure to adhere to the prescribed timeline and the absence of any Board-sanctioned extension or application for condonation of delay.Treatment of Competing ArgumentsThe appellant argued that the procedural lapse should not prevent the appeal from being heard on merits, citing previous decisions where similar procedural issues were overlooked. However, the Tribunal distinguished these cases based on the specific facts and the absence of any contestation or Board approval in those instances. The respondent argued that the statutory requirements were clear and mandatory, and the Tribunal agreed, emphasizing the necessity of compliance with the statutory framework.ConclusionsThe Tribunal concluded that the appeal was indeed time-barred due to non-compliance with the statutory requirements of Section 129D(3) and its proviso. The absence of any Board approval or condonation application was fatal to the appellant's case.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoningThe Tribunal noted, 'The appellant has no right to any preferential consideration to get its delay or non-compliance of the mandate of law condoned mechanically and without adhering to the mandate of law.'Core Principles EstablishedThe judgment reaffirmed the principle that statutory timelines for filing appeals are mandatory and that any delay must be justified with Board approval or through a condonation application. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural requirements to ensure the integrity of the legal process.Final Determinations on Each IssueThe Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to dismiss the appeal as time-barred. It found no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned Order-in-Appeal, concluding that the procedural lapse was not excusable in the absence of Board approval or a condonation application.