Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Customs (Import), ... vs Fiat India Automobiles Pvt Ltd on 5 September, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. I
Appeal Nos. C/61/10, 62/10, 63/10, 114/12, 115/12, 117/12, 118/12, 119/12, 120/12, 121/12, 122/12, 123/12, 124/12, 125/12, 137/12, 138/12, 139/12, 140/12, 141/12, 142/12, 143/12, 145/12, 147/12, 163/12, 164/12, 165/12, 166/12 & 116/12
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 537 (Gr.VB)/2009 (JNCH) & 539 (GR.VB)/2009 (JNCH) dated 12.10.2009, 536 (GR.VB)/2009 (JNCH) dated 12.10.2009 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai II.)
For approval and signature
Honble Mr.S.S. Kang, Vice President
Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva
Appellant
(Represented by: Mr. Amand Shah, Additional Commissioner (A.R) and Mr. A.K. Prabhakar, Superintendent (A.R))
Vs
Fiat India Automobiles Pvt Ltd
Respondent
(Represented by: Mr. A.V. Naik and Mr. Nagin Patil, Advocates) CORAM:
Honble Mr.S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 05.09.2012 Date of Decision: 05.09.2012 ORDER NO..
Per: S.S. Kang
1. In all these appeals, common issue is involved. Therefore, they are being taken up together for disposal.
2. Brief facts of the case that the Respondents made import of parts and accessories of motor vehicles and cleared on payment of appropriate duty as per the assessment orders passed by the proper officer. Subsequently, the Respondents filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) after the expiry of the condonable period of limitation provided under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals), vide the impugned orders, allowed the appeals.
3. Revenue filed these appeals against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) entertained the appeals filed by the Respondent even after the condonable period as provided under the Customs Act, 1962.
4. This fact is not disputed by the Respondent. The Respondent admits that in all the cases the appeals were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) after the period of limitation provided under the Customs Act, 1962.
5. We find that as per the provisions of Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by an officer of customs lower in rank than a Commissioner of Customs may appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) within three months from the date of the communication to him of such decision or order. The Commissioner (Appeals) may if he satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of sixty days, allowed to be presented within a further period of 30 days.
6. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur reported in 2008 (221) ELT 163 (SC) held that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under the Customs Act, 1962.
7. In the present case, as admitted by the Respondent, the appeals were filed beyond the period of 90 days and the Commissioner (Appeals) has entertained the appeals. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises (supra), we find that the impugned order is not sustainable and hence set aside.
8. The appeals are allowed and order passed by the adjudicating authority is reversed.
(Dictated in Court.) (Sahab Singh) Member (Technical) (S.S. Kang) Vice President rk 2