AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 889
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. 20.01.2025 passed by the 3rd respondent - Customs Excise and Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Southern Region Bench in Customs Appeals No. 30748-30757 of 2024, by calling for the records and consequently set aside the original order No. 185/2022-ADJN-CUS-ADC, dt.14.03.2023 passed by the 1st respondent as arbitrary contrary to the provisions of customs Act 1962 and consequent set aside the same. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No. 1 is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, having its registered office at Indira Gandhi International Airport, Terminal-1D, New Delhi - 110037, India, and an additional operational office at 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon - 122016, Haryana. The petitioner No. 1 is a well-established entity in the aviation and airline industry, carrying on diversified operations including air transportation, warehousing of goods, logistics, and allied trade services, and it has been issued with an Importer Exporter Code (IEC) bearing No.0593003667. 3. The petitioner No. 1 entered into a sub-sub-lease deed dt.28.07.2021 (hereinafter referred to as the "Lease Deed") with M/s GMR Hyderabad Aviation SE....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....voices pertaining to M/s UIEPL, wherein the goods declared were Leather Belts and Leather Wallets, with a total declared value of Rs.8.36 crores, however, upon examination, the DRI formed an opinion that the quality of the goods did not justify the declared value, and accordingly, the services of a Chartered Engineer, Sri N.R. Rao, were engaged, who assessed the value of the goods at Rs. 1.67 crores as against the declared value of Rs.8.36 crores. 7. It is further stated that upon investigation, it was alleged that neither the goods nor the staff were present at the premises at the relevant time and that no supporting business records were available at the registered premises, and were in fact, non-existent entities. Based on the said valuation report, the Additional Commissioner of Customs called upon the petitioner to submit relevant documents for verification. The petitioner duly furnished all documents as required. Upon scrutiny, it was observed by the respondent authorities that the tax invoices issued by M/s UIEPL contained endorsements indicating an intention to claim benefits under the RODTEP scheme. However, the SEZ online system reflected that the exports were filed un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd no infirmity in the order passed by the 2nd respondent, and thus, both the appellate authorities refused to entertain the appeals beyond the prescribed period of limitation as envisage under section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. 11. It is further contended that, both the appeals were rejected solely on the ground of limitation, without a proper adjudication on merits, which deprived the petitioners of their valuable right. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners were constrained to file the present writ petitions challenging the orders passed by the respondents. 12. Heard Sri Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Domenic Fernandez, the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 13. Sri Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended that the appeals filed under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 ought not to have been rejected at the threshold without proper determination of the factual issues. It is submitted that the 2nd and 3rd respondents, being appellate authorities, empowered to appreciate the factual matrix of the case, ought to have entertained the appeals and adjud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....resented by Executive Engineer vs. Burse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Private Limited 2021 (6) SCC 460, along with the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Sri Kanakadurga Developers vs. Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax and others (2018) (359) ELT 286 (AAR) and the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Navabharat Enterprises Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import) 2015 SCC Online BOM 8592, wherein it is stated that the law of limitation would be applicable to the special statute. 17. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the law of limitation applies equally to special statutes unless expressly excluded. In terms of the principles governing limitation, the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963, would apply insofar as they are not specifically excluded by the special statute, and thus, even where the Customs Act prescribes a limited period for condonation of delay, the principles underlying the Limitation Act, 1963, would still be applicable, and therefore, if sufficient cause is shown, the appellate authorities ought to have considered the appeals even if filed beyond the prescribed period. 18. It is also conte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sel further placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU, Kakinada & Ors. vs. M/s. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited 2020 (19) SCC 681, wherein it has been held that the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot entertain a writ petition so as to effectively condone the delay in filing a statutory appeal, particularly when an alternate statutory remedy is available and when there is no challenge to jurisdictional error or violation of principles of natural justice, and thus, contended that the writ petition itself is not maintainable. 23. It was further contended that when an efficacious alternative remedy is available under the statute, the High Court cannot entertain a writ petition and may non-suit the petitioner on that ground alone, for the reason that, if a party approaches the Hon'ble High Court after expiry of the maximum limitation period prescribed under the statute, the Court cannot disregard such statutory limitation and entertain the petition as a matter of right. 24. The learned Senior Standing Counsel thus contended that the wide powers conf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the appellate authorities ought to have entertained the appeals despite the delay cannot be accepted in view of the express provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. 30. At this juncture, it is apposite to consider the judicial precedents relied upon by both parties. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited's case (supra), wherein it was held that when a statute prescribes a specific period of limitation along with a limited power of condonation, the authorities cannot extend such period beyond what is expressly provided. The said principle squarely applies to the present case insofar as the 2nd respondent is concerned, as the authority is bound by the statutory limitation and cannot invoke any inherent or equitable powers to condone delay beyond the prescribed period. 31. Further reliance has been placed on M/s Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited's case(supra), wherein it has been held that the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rocedural prescriptions relating to limitation are intended to regulate the exercise of rights and not to extinguish substantive rights, especially where the consequences of non-adjudication on merits would result in apparent injustice. 38. Though the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, would automatically extend the period of limitation under the Customs Act, 1962, is not accepted, we are of the considered view that, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court can intervene in appropriate cases to ensure that technicalities do not defeat the ends of justice. 39. In the instant case, though the delay exceeds the statutorily condonable period, is not of such a nature as to indicate deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides. On the contrary, the petitioners have pursued the matter by availing the appellate remedies, albeit belatedly, raising issues which require factual adjudication and which have not been examined at all by the appellate authority on merits. In such circumstances, denial of such opportunity would result in foreclosing the petitione....