Associate Lumber Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import) (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT Chennai has emphasized that recovery cannot be made effective from the assessee before completion of the appeal period mentioned in section 129 A (3) of the Customs Act, 1962. Legislature has prescribed three months time from the communication of the order.
In the case above mentioned, lower authority allowed refund of Rs. 23,30,109/-. However, after review based on certain observation department issued recovery proceedings of amount Rs. 3,31,091/- as goods cleared at Tuticorin port does not pertain to the jurisdiction of Chennai Port. Appeal filed by the assessee was decided without providing an opportunity of being heard and on the basis of order passed by Commissioner (Appeal) department issued demand notice.
On further appeal to tribunal, it was seen that demand notice was issued without waiting for appeal period or without deciding any stay application. Further, it was seen that intimation letter sent by the office of first appellate Authority was returned with remark “left and moved”. It was argued by the counsel for the assessee that impugned order has been issued in violation of principal of natural justice and without discussing on merits.
Finally tribunal held that, coercive action before completion of the appeal period and the crystallisation of the substantive rights and liabilities of either of the parties has adversely affected the appellants chances from getting relief from a higher Appellate forum. Further, the impugned order did not decide of the rights and liabilities of parties by the application of mind to the merits of the matter. Substantive justice should not be denied on technical grounds without making visible efforts to reach out to the appellant. The impugned order hence merits to be set aside.
