S.R. Electrosteel Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai)
CESTAT Mumbai upholds dismissal of Customs appeal, ruling it was filed beyond statutory time limit under Section 128, citing Supreme Court precedent; CESTAT Dismisses Customs Appeal Over Expiry of Statutory Time Limit; Mumbai Tribunal Upholds Commissioner (Appeals)’s Decision Citing Supreme Court Precedent
Mumbai: The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai bench, has dismissed an appeal filed by M/s S.R. Electrosteel Pvt. Ltd., affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) to reject the company’s earlier appeal solely on the grounds of it being barred by limitation under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. CESTAT found that the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed beyond the period within which the Commissioner is legally empowered to condone delay, citing a definitive Supreme Court judgment on the matter.
The case originated when S.R. Electrosteel Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II, challenging an original adjudication order passed by a Customs officer of lower rank. Such appeals are governed by the provisions of Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, which prescribes the time limits for filing.
The Commissioner (Appeals), upon examining the appeal, concluded that it was filed beyond the statutory time limit and therefore dismissed it solely on this preliminary ground without going into the merits of the case. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) determined the date of communication of the original adjudication order to the appellant. While the CESTAT order notes that the Commissioner (Appeals) considered this date to be June 17, 2013, which was also the date on which the goods were cleared from Customs, the exact context or dispute around this date is not detailed in the CESTAT order, beyond the Commissioner (Appeals) using it as the starting point for calculating the limitation period.
