Case Law Details
Suparna Karmakar Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Kolkata)
Introduction: In the case of Suparna Karmakar vs. Commissioner of Customs, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Kolkata dismissed an appeal filed by the appellant on the grounds that it was filed beyond the condonable period stipulated by Section 128 of the Customs Act.
Detailed Analysis: The appellant had lodged this appeal against an impugned order in which the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal on the basis of being time-barred.
During the hearing, the appellant’s counsel highlighted that they had previously approached the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta, and the High Court had dismissed their Writ Petition. The purpose of this Writ Petition was to seek an alternative remedy available to them. Subsequently, the appellant filed the present appeal before the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
The case’s facts are as follows: the adjudication order was issued on July 31, 2019. In response to this order, the appellant submitted an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on November 28, 2019. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal on the grounds of being barred by limitation. This decision was based on the appeal being filed beyond the prescribed period established under Section 128 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the appellant approached the CESTAT.
During the proceedings, the appellant’s counsel brought attention to a High Court order dated July 20, 2021. This order mentioned that the Hon’ble High Court had condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). However, upon a closer examination of the order, it was evident that the High Court had not granted a condonation of the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Instead, the High Court’s observation was that the appellant was entitled to pursue an alternative remedy against the impugned order.
Upon referring to Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, it was clear that the appellant had indeed filed the appeal beyond the condonable period.
Conclusion: The case of Suparna Karmakar vs. Commissioner of Customs serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to the statutory time limits for filing appeals. In this instance, the appeal was dismissed by the CESTAT because it had been filed beyond the period that was subject to condonation under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. This underscores the legal significance of adhering to the prescribed timelines when pursuing remedies in customs-related matters.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT KOLKATA ORDER
The appellant has filed this appeal against the impugned order wherein the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.
2. During the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the appellant drew my attention that they have gone before the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta and the Hon’ble High Court has dismissed their Writ Petition to avail alternative remedy available to them vide order dated 07.2021. Thereafter, they have filed this appeal before this Tribunal.
3. The facts of the case are that the adjudication order was passed on 31.07.2019. Against the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on 28.11.2019. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation as the appeal has been filed beyond the prescribed period under Section 128 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Against the said order, the appellant is before us.
4. Today, when the matter was called, the ld. Counsel for the appellant drew my attention to the order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 20.07.2021 where it is stated that the Hon’ble High Court has condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). I have gone through the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court, which is extracted herein below :
On going through the above order passed by the Hon’ble High Court, I find that that the Hon’ble High Court has never condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and only the observation is that they are entitled to avail an alternative remedy against the impugned order. In that circumstances, the delay is not condoned by the Hon’ble High Court in filing the appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
5. Further, I find that as per Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, they have filed appeal beyond the condonable period.
6. In that circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the same is upheld.
7. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
