Case Law Details
M.M. Saw Mills & Industries Vs Commissioner of Customs & Service Tax (CESTAT Bangalore)
In the case of M.M. Saw Mills & Industries Vs Commissioner of Customs & Service Tax, the CESTAT Bangalore addressed a dispute regarding the refund claim for Special Additional Duty (SAD) related to timber logs imported by the appellant. The appellant had filed two Bills of Entry on February 1, 2002, seeking clearance and claiming exemption under relevant notifications. However, the adjudicating authority sanctioned only a partial refund, applying a conversion rate for Hoppus Tons that differed from the one used at the time of import. The Commissioner (Appeals) subsequently upheld this decision but rejected the appellant’s appeal due to a 22-day delay in filing, asserting that sufficient cause for this delay was not demonstrated.
The appellant contended that the delay was due to the authorized person’s absence for personal reasons and highlighted that it fell within the 30-day condonable period allowed under the Customs Act. They argued that they had a strong case on the merits, citing precedents where delays had been condoned by the Tribunal in similar circumstances. The Revenue’s representative, however, countered that the reasons provided for the delay were unconvincing and sought dismissal of the appeal. Upon reviewing the arguments, the CESTAT found the appellant’s rationale for the delay plausible and within the powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone. As a result, the Tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a merit-based review, allowing the appellant to present their case adequately.
This decision emphasizes the importance of providing a fair opportunity for parties to argue their cases, especially in complex matters involving tax disputes. The Tribunal’s ruling reflects a balanced approach, ensuring that procedural delays do not unduly prejudice parties with legitimate claims. The remand for reconsideration also highlights the ongoing complexities in the interpretation of customs notifications and the implications of conversion factors on refund claims.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT BANGALORE ORDER
M/s. M.M. Saw Mills and Industries, the appellant filed two Bills of Entry dated 01.02.2002 for clearance of ‘Timber Logs’ and claimed exemption under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 as amended by Notification No. 93/2008-Cus. Dated 01.08.2008. The appellant filed refund claim of 4% SAD. The adjudicating authority sanctioned part of the refund following the conversion of 1 Hoppus Ton=1.8027 CBM, as per Public Notice No. 21/2012 dated 11.05.2012 issued by Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore, instead of 1 Hoppus Ton=1.416 CBM adopted at the time of import. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No.12-16/2016 dated 14.01.2016, inter alia decided on the issue of the conversion of ‘Timber Logs’ using the conversion ratio of 1 Hoppus Ton=1.416 CBM, since at the time of import this conversion formula was adopted, the same should be adopted for sanction of SAD. However, as regards the appellant, Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal on the ground that the appeal was filed with a delay of 22(twenty two) days after the statutory time of 60(sixty) days to file an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved by the rejection of the appeal on the grounds of delay, the appellant has filed this appeal before the Tribunal.
2. In the appeal, the appellant contended that; 22 days delay is condonable by the Commissioner (Appeals) and it is within the condonable period of 30 days as provided under proviso to Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962; the appeal was rejected only for the reason that sufficient cause was not shown by the appellant for delay in filing the appeal; the appellant has submitted before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the reason that the authorized person was unable to attend the office due to some personal reason and the delay was not due to any wilful negligence on the part of the appellant and that they have a strong case on merit; the appellant has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T., Vadodara reported in 2015 (316) E.L.T. 286 (Tri.-Ahmd.), wherein the Tribunal has allowed the delay of 16 days and remanded to the first appellate authority for adjudication on merit; in the case of Shiva Mint Industries Vs. C.Ex., Jalandhar reported in 2010 (262) E.L.T. 397 (Tri.-Del.), wherein the delay was condoned and matter remitted back to Commissioner (Appeals) for dealing the matter according to law.
3. The learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue contended that the cause shown for delay in filing the appeal is not convincing and hence, the appeal should be rejected. In this regard, he has cited the decision in the case of DHR Holdings India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, New Delhi reported in 2024 (3) TMI 413-CESTAT-New Delhi.
4. Heard both parties and perused the records.
5. We find that the reason adduced for delay in filing the appeal by the appellant is plausible and we find that the delay is condonable and it is within the condonable powers of the Commissioner (Appeals).
6. In view of the above, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the case is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the matter on merits after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant to present their case.
(Order pronounced in open court on 19.09.2024)
Author Bio
