Limitation under Customs Act appeals requires proof of communication date and reasoned computation before rejection as time-barred.

Rejection of customs appeals as time-barred under Section 128 of the Customs Act could not be sustained where the Commissioner (Appeals) did not record or verify the actual date of communication of the Orders-in-Original, which is the starting point for limitation. The delay was computed mechanically, without working or reasoning, and the appellant's claim that the appeals were within the condonable period was not examined. As the record before the Tribunal was incomplete on the communication date and limitation computation, the matter was remanded for fresh determination of the limitation issue and, if delay is condonable, decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in rejecting the appeals as time-barred under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether the limitation issue required fresh examination.

Analysis: The impugned orders recorded delay without discussing or substantiating the actual date of communication of the Orders-in-Original, which was the starting point for computing limitation. No working or methodology for the alleged delay was given, and the appellant's contention that the appeals were filed within the condonable period was not examined. The orders were therefore found to be mechanical and unspeaking on the crucial limitation question. In the absence of complete records before the Tribunal to conclusively determine the correct date of communication and computation of limitation, the merits were not decided.

Conclusion: The rejection of the appeals as time-barred could not be sustained, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to ascertain the actual date of communication, recompute limitation in accordance with law, and then decide the appeals afresh, including on merits if the delay is found condonable.

---