Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Himachal Exim vs Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai on 17 June, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal Nos.C/COD/206, 208, 210, 212 & 214/2010
& C/241 to 245/10
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.1549-1553/2009
dated 21.12.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see 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
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? :
3. Whether the Member wishes to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
Himachal Exim
Appellants
Versus
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Derrick Sam, Advocate Shri C.Dhanasekaran, SDR For the Appellants For the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Date of hearing : 17.6.2010 Date of decision : 17.6.2010 Final Order No.____________ The applicants seek to explain the delay of 35 days in filing the above appeals against the impugned order directing testing of the seized imported toys on the ground that subsequent to the remand order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the re-testing did not take place immediately and due to the delay on the part of the authorities to carry out the re-testing, they approached the Honble Madras High Court which vide its order dt. 3.2.2010 in W.P.No.1866/2010 disposed of the case with a direction to the Additional Commissioner of Customs to implement the operative portion of the impugned order by sending the samples and passing appropriate orders within three weeks. The department then called upon the applicants to pay additional fees for the purpose of re-testing. Since the fee was found to be excessive, the applicants decided to challenge the remand order. This explanation is in no way sufficient for the purpose of condoning the delay as if the fee had been found to be reasonable, the applicants would not have challenged the remand order but waited for the samples to be re-tested.
I, therefore, decline to condone the delay in filing these appeals. The COD applications are therefore dismissed.
As a consequence, the appeals are dismissed as barred by limitation.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) VICE-PRESIDENT gs 3