Case Law Details
Metro Fashions Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai)
Introduction: The Customs, Excise, Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Mumbai recently ruled in favor of Metro Fashions against the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai III, stating that merely sending the Order-in-Original by registered post doesn’t qualify as valid communication, thereby having a significant impact on the limitation period for filing an appeal.
Analysis: In the case, Metro Fashions was issued a demand cum show-cause notice for Rs.1,58,101, being the drawback amount they received for their exports. The firm’s appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner on the grounds of exceeding the 90-day limitation period under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, Metro Fashions claimed they received the Order-in-Original only when they personally visited the authority’s office and hence, the appeal was within the prescribed time frame. CESTAT Mumbai, after reviewing the case, held that the communication of the order was only valid when it was actually served to the assessee, rather than merely sending it by registered post. This conclusion was based on the interpretation of the phrase “date of communication of order” under Section 128.
Conclusion: The ruling from CESTAT Mumbai establishes an important precedent. Merely sending an Order-in-Original by registered post is not sufficient for it to be considered communicated under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. This distinction can affect the calculation of the limitation period for filing an appeal, thereby influencing the outcome of legal proceedings.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT MUMBAI ORDER
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
