1997 (3) TMI 266 - AT - Customs

Dismissed appeal due to late filing upheld by Tribunal; ignorance of law not an excuse

The appeal filed by M/s. Hemal Industries against the dismissal of their appeal by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, was rejected by the ... Appeal - Limitation - Condonation of delay Issues: Appeal filed against dismissal as barred by time.The appeal was filed by M/s. Hemal Industries against the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, dismissing the appeal as barred by time. The appellant argued that the order was communicated after the prescribed period and requested condonation of delay. The appellant claimed that no covering letter was provided to enable filing an appeal to the jurisdictional Appellate Authority. The Departmental Representative countered, stating that it was unclear if a preamble was supplied and that the appellant had already filed an appeal against a previous order. The Tribunal examined Section 128 of the Customs Act, which allows for appeal within three months, extendable by a further three months for sufficient cause. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed after the initial three months, and even if considered within six months of communication, the appellant failed to provide a sufficient reason for the delay. The appellant's argument of lack of awareness about the appealability of the order was deemed insufficient, considering the previous challenge to a similar order. The Tribunal applied the legal maxim ignoratia juris non-excusat (ignorance of the law is no excuse) and found no merit in the appellant's claim. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of being time-barred, upholding the Collector (Appeals)' decision.