TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1859
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g period. However, it was rejected on the ground that application for the extension of the warehousing period was not made well in advance and the rejection order passed by the Commissioner was communicated to the Appellant vide impugned letters/ orders dated 10.12.2021/ 20.12.2021/ 22.12.2021. Since the order giving the reasons for rejection issued by the Adjudication Authority was not communicated to the Appellant, Appellant filed present appeals on the basis of said communication. Details of appeals are: - Sl. No Appeal No. Order/ letter No. and date Bond No. and Date 1 C/20415/2022-DB CUS-Bond-Extn-354-2021WHB- ICD-Whitefield dated 20.12.2021 2421 dated 09.10.2019 2 C/20416/2022-DB CUS-Bond-Extn-354-2021WHB- ICD-Whitefield dated 20.12.2021 2471 dated 14.102019 3 C/20417/2022-DB CUS-Bond-Extn-312-2021WHB- ICD-Whitefield dated 10.12.2021 1054 dated 07.05.2019 4 C/20418/2022-DB CUS-Bond-Extn-322-2021WHB- CD-Whitefield dated 22.12.2021 954 dated 23.04.2019 3. When the appeal came up for hearing, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant is engaged in the business of operating Duty-Free Shop at t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e requiring application for extension to be filed well in advance. The law only provides that Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, on sufficient cause being shown, may extend the warehousing period by not more than one year at a time. Learned Counsel also submits that it is a settled position in law that application for extension of warehousing period is to be considered even though the application is filed belatedly. In this regard, the Appellant refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sunil Jugal Kishore Gupta Vs. UOI [1988 (36) ELT 75] wherein Hon'ble High Court held that the authorities are under an obligation to consider the application for extension despite the same having been preferred after the expiry of the permitted warehousing period. Further following the above, Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import) Chennai Vs CESTAT, Chennai [2017(353) ELT 398(Mad)] held that, "There is nothing in Section 61(1)(b)(i)(B), which is suggestive of the fact, that an application, for that purpose, was required to be moved, prior to the expiry of the initial period of warehousing". Furt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... further submits that during the relevant period of time the country was in the grip of severe pandemic and there were surges of COVID cases. Lockdown was clamped everywhere. The Appellant's establishment was closed, and staff was not coming to office. Even in such a pressing situation, the Appellant managed to submit the application before expiry of the extended warehousing period. Even the required Bank guarantees for seeking extension could be obtained against all adversities as it took time for banks to give guarantees in the wake of losses of the appellant due to Covid induced stoppages. Even after submitting the Bank Guarantee (BG) on 09.11.2021, the application was rejected in December 2021 without giving any reasons or opportunities to explain in person. The scheduled commercial international passenger flight services were resumed only on 27.03.2022, vide Circular dated 08.03.2022 issued by Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), New Delhi. The Learned Commissioner of Customs ought to have considered this as a special case. 7. Learned Counsel also draws our attention to large number of communication and submits that pursuant to issue of impugned orders, indepen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of MA No 21/2022 with the following directions: i. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dt 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. ii. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022. iii. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 1.3.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. iv. It is further clarified that the period fr....