Asit C. Mehta Financial Services Limited Vs Customs Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court held that the time limit of 120 days prescribed in Section 130(A)(4) of the Customs Act, in our view, should be construed as being directory only and not imperative.
Facts-
This petition seeks dismissal and quashing of the case directed to be filed by Respondent No.1 in Customs Application No. 28 of 2001 that was filed by Respondent No.2 and for return of Bank Guarantee of Rs.26,86,000/- given by petitioner in favour of Prothonotary and Senior Master of this court.
According to petitioner, pursuant to the directions passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, petitioner had furnished a Bank Guarantee of Rs.26,86,000/- in favour of Prothonotary and Senior Master, Bombay High Court.
By an order dated 10th January 2006, this court raised certain substantial questions of law and directed Respondent No.1, i.e., The Customs Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) to send the statement of case to the Bombay High Court as expeditiously as possible. Respondent No.1 has not sent the statement of the case till date. Petitioners have been dutifully renewing the Bank Guarantee since 2002 and till date incurred about Rs.10 Lakhs to keep the Bank Guarantee alive. Section 130(A)(4) of the the Customs Act, 1962 (the Customs Act) provides time limit of 120 days to submit the statement of facts and since it has not been submitted the court should hold that it is now time barred and also dismiss the said application for want of prosecution.
Conclusion-
The time limit of 120 days prescribed in Section 130(A)(4) of the Customs Act, in our view, should be construed as being directory only and not imperative. The CESTAT (Respondent No.1) is a judicial body and over its actions Respondent No.2 (Commissioner of Customs) has no control. In those circumstances, to construe the time limit for the submission of the case as mandatory might be to deprive Respondent No.2 of its right to have a question of law considered by the High Court which the Customs Act intends to be so considered. A party should not be deprived of a statutory right for no fault of its own, but for the fault of a public body over which it has no control.
