Sindhu Cargo Services Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Mumbai
- CitationAPPEAL NO. C/86629/13-MUM
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the appellant's reason for a delay in filing an appeal before the first appellate authority is supported by documentary evidence (here, a company circular showing the office was relocating), that reason cannot be rejected as unsatisfactory; a delay within the period condonable under the statute, once explained by such a reason, must be condoned and the appeal decided on merits rather than dismissed as time-barred.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No. 25/Mumbai-III/2013 dtd. 8/1/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-III]
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial)
=======================================================
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 : 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?
=======================================================
Sindhu Cargo Services Ltd. :
Appellants
VS
Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai :
Respondent
Appearance
Shri. Bharadwaj R., Consultant for the Appellants Shri. S.J. Sahu, Asst. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent
CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
Date of hearing: 6/2/2015 Date of decision: 6/2/2015
ORDER NO.
Per : Ramesh Nair
This appeal is directed against Order-in- Appeal No. 25/Mumbai-III/2013 dtd. 8/1/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-III, wherein appeal of the appellant was rejected as time bar. There was delay of 23 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) for which the appellant had filed application of condonation of delay wherein reason for delay was given that the office was under shifting at new place in Bangalore, the Commissioner has found the reason unsatisfactory and accordingly rejected the appeal as time bar.
2. Shri. Bharadwaj R., Ld Counsel for the appellant submits that it is a fact that delay occurred in filing the appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) is due to shifting of their office. He has submitted circular from which it transpire that reason given in the condonation of delay made before the Commissioner(Appeals) can not be disputed. He also submits that the period of delay is well within the condonable period provided in statutory provisions.
3. Shri. S.J. Sahu, Ld. Asst. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the record.
5. I find that the reason given by the appellant for delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) is supported by the Circular of the appellants company that the office was under shifting to new address. This shows that reason given in condonation of delay application can not be rejected. In view of the these facts, I set aside the order of the Commissioner(Appeals) and allowe the appeal by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter a fresh on merit.
(Dictated in court)
Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial)
sk
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