TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 79
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3.07.2017 and proceedings were initiated as per provisions of law. The owner of the Toyoto Innova Car Smt. Mangaleswari, who is the appellant herein, was also issued notice. On coming to know that the car has been seized by the Customs department, the appellant who is the owner of the car had filed an application for provisional release of the vehicle. The said application was considered by the DRI and vide letter dated 15.01.2018, the vehicle was ordered to be provisionally released to the appellant upon furnishing sufficient cash security. Against this order, the appellant filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) on 30.01.2018 and pleaded that the security of Rs. 5 Lakhs imposed for provisional release of the vehicle is on the higher....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d for use of the vehicle for a trip to a temple. She later came to know that her husband was arrested with regard to smuggling of gold in her car. She had given her car to her husband only for going to the temple and that she would not have given the car had she known that it would be used for smuggling of gold. There is no evidence to show her involvement in the smuggling activities. The appellant is a destitute wife and her brother had provided the car only as a means of livelihood. Coming to know that the vehicle is seized she pleaded for provisional release of the vehicle before the investigation officers. After thorough investigation, DRI officers vide letter dated 15.01.2018 had ordered for provisional release of the vehicle on furnis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he merits of the matter. The said order dismissing the appeal as infructuous was served upon the appellants only on 23.08.2018. The appellant has filed an affidavit before the Tribunal to this effect. 2.2 Aggrieved by such order of dismissing the appeal as infructuous, the present appeal was filed against Order-in-Original, dated 02.05.2018. Since they were anxiously awaiting for the decision in the appeal with regard to provisional release pending before Commissioner (Appeals) there occurred delay in filing the appeal against Order-in-Original, dated 02.05.2018 and the appeal could be filed only on 04.09.2018. The delay occurred only for the reason that the appellant was waiting for the outcome of the appeal preferred against the applicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) appeared and argued on behalf of the department. He submitted that the appellants have filed the appeal against Order-in-Original, dated 02.05.2018 only on 04.09.2018. The appeal ought to have been filed within 90 days including the condonable period as provided in the statute. Thus, the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly rejected the appeal as time-barred. He also relied upon the decision in the case of M/s. Singh Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur reported in 2008 (221) E.L.T.163 (S.C.). 4. Heard both sides. 5. From the facts of the case as narrated above, it can be seen that the appellant was diligently prosecuting the appeal filed before Commissioner (Appeals) against the order of provisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herefore, requires consideration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. M.P. Steel Corporation (supra) has observed as under:- "52. The present case stands on a slightly different footing. The abortive appeal had been filed against orders passed in March-April, 1992. The present appeal was filed under Section 128, which Section continues on the statute book till date. Before its amendment in 2001, it provided a maximum period of 180 days within which an appeal could be filed. Time began to run on 3-4-1992 under Section 128 pre-amendment when the appellant received the order of the Superintendent of Customs intimating it about an order passed by the Collector of Customs on 25-3-1992. Under Section 128 as it then stood a person aggr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng filed in1992 was a proceeding before the wrong forum. The vested right of appeal within the period of 180 days had not yet got over. Upon the lifting of the shadow, a certain residuary period within which a proper appeal could be filed still remained. That period would continue to be within the period of 180 days notwithstanding the amendment made in 2001 as otherwise the right to appeal itself would vanish given the shorter period of limitation provided by Section 128 after 2001." 6. The Commissioner (Appeals), who while hearing the appeal also has a duty to inform the appellants at the time of personal hearing that when the show-cause notice has culminated in confirming confiscation of the vehicle, the application for provisional rele....