Shri Sai Shyam Associates Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
Customs Appeal Rejection Set Aside Because Limitation Was Computed Without Determining Communication Date; Customs Appeals Remanded Because Commissioner Failed to Verify Limitation Properly; Time-Barred Customs Appeals Set Aside Because Orders Were Non-Speaking; Limitation Cannot Be Assumed Because Date of Communication Must Be Established.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai allowed three appeals by way of remand after holding that the Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the appellant’s customs appeals as time-barred without properly examining the computation of limitation under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962.
The appeals arose from Orders-in-Appeal rejecting the appellant’s challenges to Orders-in-Original concerning imports of used and worn clothing. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appeals had been filed beyond the statutory period of 60 days and the additional condonable period of 30 days, and dismissed them without examining the merits.
Before the Tribunal, the appellant contended that the rejection on limitation was unsustainable because the Commissioner (Appeals), after taking the appeals on record, granting a personal hearing and accepting written submissions, failed to determine the actual date of communication of the Orders-in-Original or properly compute the limitation period. The appellant further submitted that the Orders-in-Original were received on 15.06.2018, making 13.09.2018 the last day for filing. Since that date was a public holiday (Ganesh Chaturthi), the appeals were filed on the next working day, 14.09.2018, in accordance with Section 9 of the General Clauses Act.
