Art N Glass Vs C.C- Ludhiana (CESTAT Chandigarh)
Introduction: The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Chandigarh recently delivered a significant verdict in the case of Art N Glass vs. C.C Ludhiana. The crux of the matter revolved around the timeliness of an appeal filed under Section 128 of the Customs Act. The CESTAT Chandigarh’s ruling emphasized the criticality of adhering to the prescribed timeframes in the Customs Act for appeals.
Detailed Analysis: In this case, Art N Glass imported “Euro Grey Float Glass 3300X2140 MM 5 MM” from China and filed Bill of Entry No. 9422155 dated 26.12.2018 for home consumption. The Customs authorities believed that the imported goods were subject to Anti-Dumping Duty, leading to a directive to deposit the duty. To clarify the matter, representative samples were sent for analysis, and the report from CSIR-Kolkata dated 11.09.2019 indicated that the goods did not attract Anti-Dumping Duty. Subsequently, Art N Glass requested a re-assessment of the Bill of Entry based on the test sample report.
The order rejecting the refund claim was received by Art N Glass on 31.01.2020. In response, Art N Glass filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 20.03.2020. The key contention in the case was whether this appeal was filed within the stipulated 60-day timeframe prescribed under Section 128 of the Customs Act.
The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal, citing it as time-barred, as he calculated the period from the date of the CSIR report, i.e., 11.09.2019.
However, the consultant representing Art N Glass argued that the appeal was well within the prescribed period as it was filed within 60 days of receiving the order rejecting the refund claim on 31.01.2020. The consultant highlighted that the time limitation as defined in Section 128 of the Customs Act did not apply in this case, as it involved the collection of an amount without the authority of law. This was in violation of Article 265 of the Indian Constitution, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. ITC Limited.
After considering both sides’ arguments and examining the material on record, the CESTAT Chandigarh ruled in favor of Art N Glass. It held that the appeal was filed within the prescribed timeframe and that the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred was not legally sustainable.
Conclusion: The CESTAT Chandigarh’s verdict in the Art N Glass vs. C.C Ludhiana case serves as a reminder of the importance of complying with the prescribed timeframes under the Customs Act when filing appeals. In this instance, the appeal was filed within the stipulated 60-day period from the receipt of the order, and therefore, the appeal dismissal was set aside. The ruling underscores the significance of legal procedures and timelines in the context of customs matters, ensuring that justice is served efficiently and within the framework of the law.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHANDIGARH ORDER
The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Customs, Ludhiana whereby the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant on being time barred.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Appellant imported “Euro Grey Float Glass 3300X2140 MM 5 MM” (hereinafter to be referred as impugned goods’) vide Bill of Entry No. 9422155 dated 26.12.2018 from China. The goods were examined by the Customs and as per Customs examination order dated 10.01.2019, the Anti-Dumping Duty was leviable on impugned goods in terms of Notification No. 47/2015-ADD dated 08.09.2015, however, to satisfy the contention of the appellant, representative samples were ordered to be drawn for getting the same tested for seeking report as to whether the sample is processed glass meant for decorative/industrial/automotive purposes or not.
