Case Law Details
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.
- Accordingly, sample was collected & sent to CSIR-Kolkata vide letter C No 307/CONCOR/19 dated 11.01.2019. The CSIR-Kolkata vide Ref No. GC/TCC/TR-3140/19- 20 dated 11.09.2019 gave its report in favour of the appellant i.e. sample is “processed glass meant for decorative/industrial/automotive purposes”.
- Thereafter, the appellant vide letter dated 19.12.19, requested the department to re-assess the Bill of Entry no. 9422155 dated 12.18 on the basis of test sample report of CSIR Kolkata dated 11.09.2019. The appellant also filed the present appeals on 20.03.2020 while giving reference to the Standing Order No 02/2020 dated 22.01.2020 issued by the O/o Commissioner of Customs, Sahnewal, Ludhiana on basis of final decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s ITC Ltd. Vs C.C.E, Kolkata-IV in Civil appeal Nos. 293 & 294 of 2009 dated 18.09.2019.
- The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the submissions of the party held that the present appeal is time barred because the same has been filed after the expiry of 60 days which is prescribed under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 for filing appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Heard both the parties and perused the records.
4. Consultant appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the appellant filed the present appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on 20.03.2020 only after receiving the order of the Assistant Commissioner on 3 1.01.2020. He further submitted that the appellant got the copy of the order on 3 1.01.2020 and filed appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on 20.03.2020 which is within the stipulated period of 60 days from the receipt of such order but the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly counted the period from the date of report of the CSIR dated 11.09.2019.
- Ld. Consultant further submitted that the time limitation as proscribed under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not applicable in the instant case as this is a case of amount collected without authority of law which is against the tenents of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. For this submission, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. ITC Limited 1993 (67) ELT 3 (S.C.) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
“Bar of limitation as provided for in Section 11B of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 not applicable when assessee not guilty of any laches in claiming refund – Article 226 of Constitution of India. –
It has been settled by this Court that where excess duty was not payable by the party under the provisions of a statute but had in fact been paid under a mistake of law, the party has a right to recover it and there is a corresponding legal obligation on the part of the Government to refund the excess duty so collected because the collection in such cases would be without the authority of law. The payment and recovery of excess excise duty was thus on account of a mutual mistake. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court, while disposing of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was perfectly justified in holding that the bar of limitation which had been put against the respondent by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) to deny them the refund for the period 1-9-1970 to 28-5-1971 and 1-6-1971 to 19-2-1972 was not proper as admittedly the respondent had approached the Assistant Collector Excise soon after coming to know of the judgment in Voltas case and the assessee was not guilty of any laches to claim refund. [paras 5, 6, 7, 8]”
5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR reiterated the findings in the impugned order.
6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of material on record, I find that in the present case, the appellant 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. But the department was of the view that the goods attract Anti Dumping Duty and directed the appellant to deposit the Anti Dumping Duty and thereafter, sent the sample for analysis and after the Report of the Laboratory came, it was found that the impugned goods do not attract Anti Dumping Duty. Thereafter, the appellant filed refund claim before the Assistant Commissioner who vide his order rejected the refund claim and the order of rejecting the said refund claim was received by the appellant on 31.01.2020 and thereafter the appellant filed appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on 20.03.2020 which is within the stipulated period of 60 days as prescribed in Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, in my considered view, the appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was very much well within the period of limitation and the dismissal of the appeal as time barred by the Ld. Commissioner is not sustainable in law, therefore, I set-aside the impugned order by remanding the case back to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to decide the same within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
7. Appeal is accordingly allowed by way of remand.
(Operative part of the order pronounced in the open Court)
