M/S. Yash Enterprises vs Commissioner Of Customs (Import) ...
- CitationAppeal No. C/87756/2013-MUM
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Commissioner (Appeals) may condone a delay in filing an appeal beyond the statutory period of 60 days, up to a further 30 days, where the appellant has shown sufficient cause, such as illness of the proprietor, for the delay; the total outer limit of 90 days being the boundary of that power, an appeal filed within that 90-day period cannot be rejected as time-barred on the ground of the 60-day limit alone, and the matter must be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits after affording the appellant a personal hearing.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 335/MCH/ADC/GR.VB/2013 dated 3.6.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai-I)
For approval and signature: Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)
============================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : 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 : CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :
authorities?
=============================================================
M/s. Yash Enterprises :
Appellant
VS
Commissioner of Customs (Import) Mumbai :
Respondent
Appearance
Shri Anil Balani, Advocate for Appellant
Shri S.J. Sahu, Assistant Commissioner (A.R) for respondent
CORAM:
Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)
Date of hearing : 20/02/2015 Date of decision :20/02/2015
ORDER NO.
The appeal is directed against the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), who has refused to condone the delay beyond 60 days in filing of the appeal by the appellant against the Order-in- Original.
2. The facts are that Order-in-Original was passed by the Additional Commissioner ordering confiscation and allowing release on payment of redemption fine of Tungesten Carbide Tips and also imposing personal penalty on the appellant. The appellant could not file the appeal against this order within the statutory time limit of 60 days. However, they filed the appeal 28 days after the expiry of 60 days i.e. within the condonation period of 30 days which can be allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The order is also ex-parte because the appellant could not appear for personal hearing.
3. As regards the delay in filing of appeal, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant states that the proprietor of the appellant was ill and therefore could not file the appeal within 60 days. Further, he also refers to letter written by him on 7.1.2013 and 5.2.2013 addressed to the Commissioner (Appeals). In the first letter he has expressed inability to attend the hearing on 8.1.2013 because he was to attend a hearing before the Tribunal at Delhi. In the second letter, in fact, he requested for expediting the hearing.
4. In view of the grounds of ill health expressed by the Counsel, the delay in filling the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is condoned as the total period of 90 days had not expired. In this view of the matter, the case is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Pronounced & Dictated in court )
(P. S. Pruthi) Member (Technical)
Sm
??
??
??
??
3
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