M/S Aquatech Systems (Asia) Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Import), ...
- CitationAppeal No. C/85334/15
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Commissioner (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal as time-barred without first considering whether the delay has been satisfactorily explained; where the delay of 26 days beyond the prescribed 60-day period is satisfactorily explained, the appeal must be restored and decided on merits rather than rejected on limitation.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. MUM/CUSTM/SMP-429 & 430/2013-14 dated 24.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai).
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)
======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
======================================================
M/s Aquatech Systems (Asia) Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Respondent
Appearance:
Shri C.M. Sharma, Consultant for Appellant
Shri A.K. Singh, Addl. Commr. (AR) for Respondent
CORAM:
SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) SHRI P.S. PRUTHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Date of Hearing: 11.03.2015
Date of Decision: 11.03.2015
ORDER NO.
Per: Anil Choudhary
This appeal is filed by the appellant against Order-in-Appeal No. MUM/CUSTM/SMP-429 & 430/2013-14 dated 24.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai.
2. Vide impugned order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the ground of time bar, since the appeal was filed by the appellant with a delay of 26 days beyond the prescribed period of 60 days.
3. Heard both sides.
4. As the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is satisfactorily explained, appeal is allowed by way of remand. The Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits, within a period of eight weeks from receipt of this order. The appellant is also directed to appear before the Commissioner (Appeals) with a copy of order and seek opportunity of hearing.
(Dictated and pronounced in Court)
(P.S. Pruthi) (Anil Choudhary) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
Sinha
1
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free