Spacewood Furnishers Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai)
CESTAT Mumbai condoned a 36-day delay in filing an appeal by Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Ltd. against anti-dumping duty, holding that limitation should be computed from the date of communication of the speaking order and not from the assessment date. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)’s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication under Section 128A(4) of the Customs Act within four months.
In the case of Spacewood Furnishers Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Mumbai addressed a dispute over the imposition of anti-dumping duty. Spacewood Furnishers had paid the duty on protest for a bill of entry and requested a speaking order—a formal, reasoned decision from the assessing authority. However, they did not receive one. Due to this, when they filed an appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals), it was delayed by 36 days. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal, citing that the delay exceeded the permissible 90-day period from the date of the bill of entry.
Spacewood Furnishers appealed to the CESTAT, arguing that the delay was due to the absence of the speaking order. They cited precedents from the Kerala High Court, which held that the limitation period for filing an appeal should begin from the date the speaking order is communicated, not from the initial bill of entry, especially when the importer has specifically objected to the assessment. The CESTAT observed that the appellant had indeed requested a speaking order and that no such order was issued. The tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had erred by calculating the limitation period from the date of the bill of entry, which did not include the reasons for the anti-dumping duty.
