Case Law Details
Access Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Bangalore)
In the case of Access Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Customs, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Bangalore dismissed an appeal filed by Access Enterprises due to a significant delay in filing. The appellant had imported car accessories and filed a bill of entry for their clearance. However, following allegations of misdeclaration and undervaluation, the Adjudication Authority issued Order-in-Original No. 49/2014 on October 17, 2014, which not only rejected the declared value but also imposed a fine and penalty. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Access Enterprises appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner dismissed the appeal, asserting that the appellant had received the order on October 23, 2014, but only filed the appeal on November 13, 2015, resulting in a delay of 325 days beyond the statutory deadline of January 20, 2015, as mandated by Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962.
During the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the delay was due to legitimate medical reasons, supported by an affidavit indicating that the proprietor had been advised to undergo absolute bed rest, which hindered his ability to manage business affairs. However, the Revenue’s authorized representative firmly opposed this claim, citing the absence of any provision within the Customs Act that allows for the condonation of delay beyond the stipulated 90 days for filing appeals with the Commissioner (Appeals). After considering the arguments from both sides, the tribunal reaffirmed the statutory limitations for appeal filings. Despite the appellant’s submission of the affidavit detailing medical grounds for the delay, the tribunal maintained that it had no authority to condone such delays under the existing legal framework.
Ultimately, the CESTAT upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the necessity for adherence to statutory timelines in filing appeals within the Customs Act. The order was pronounced in open court on September 18, 2024, reiterating the importance of timely compliance with legal processes in customs matters, irrespective of the reasons for any delays in filing appeals.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
The Appellant had imported car accessories and filed bill of entry for clearance of the goods. However, alleging illegality in import, by misdeclaration and under valuation, proceedings were initiated and Adjudication Authority vide Order-in-Original No. 49/2014 dated 17.10.2014 rejected the declared value and also enhanced the value and imposed fine and penalty. Aggrieved by said order an appeal is filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), who as per the impugned order dismissed the appeal on the ground that as per the evidence available on record, appellant received the impugned Order-in-Original on 23.10.2014, and appeal was filed only on 13.11.2015. Since the appeal should have been filed on or before 20.01.2015 as per section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962, the appeal is dismissed as the delay of 325 days. Aggrieved by said order present appeal is filed.
2. When the matter came up for hearing, Learned Counsel vehemently argued that they have good case on merit and filed a affidavit specifying the medical reasons for the delay. As per the affidavit filed by the appellant, the proprietor of the appellant was advised by the doctors to undergo absolute bed rest and due to that reason, he was unable to attend to day to day business activities.
3. Learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the Revenue vehemently opposed, the ground raised by the appellant and submitted that there is no provision in Customs Act, 1962 for condonation of delay in filing an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) beyond the statutory period of 90(ninety) days.
4. Heard both sides and perused the records.
5. We find that even though the appellant produced an affidavit and argued that the delay in filing the appeal is on medical ground and beyond control of the appellant, considering the statutory limitation for filing the appeal, this Tribunal have no power to condone the delay in filing the appeal as held by appellant authority. Hence the appeal is not sustainable.
6. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.
(Order pronounced in open court on 18.09.2024)
Author Bio
