Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S I G International Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Import), ... on 17 December, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. I Application No. C/EH/98351 to 98359/13 in Appeal No. C/88936 to 88944/13 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 626 to 634 (Gr.1)/2013(JNCH)IMP-488 to 496 dated 15.7.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II). For approval and signature: Honble Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Honble Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) ======================================================
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? ====================================================== M/s I G International Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva Respondent Appearance: Shri C. Subba Reddy, Advocate for Appellant Shri V.C. Khole, Dy. Commissioner (AR) for Respondent CORAM: SHRI P.R. CHANDRASEKHARAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing: 17.12.2013 Date of Decision: 17.12.2013 ORDER NO. Per: P.R. Chandrasekharan
There are 9 early hearing applications filed by the appellant M/s I G International Ltd. against Order-in-Appeal No. 626 to 634 (Gr.1)/2013(JNCH)IMP-488 to 496 dated 15.7.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II.
2. Vide the impugned order, the lower appellate authority has rejected the appeals filed by the appellant by not condoning the delay of a few days ranging from 8 days to 22 days in filing of the appeals. The delay occurred inasmuch as the appellant was awaiting a speaking order of the assessing officer in respect of 9 Bills of Entry filed by him wherein he had claimed a lower value. The value declared by the appellant was unilaterally enhanced by the assessing officer without passing a speaking order. The appellant discharged the duty liability on the enhanced value under protest and sought a speaking order from the assessing officer, which was not given. Therefore, the appellant preferred an appeal before the lower appellate authority and there was a delay in filing of the appeals. The reasons stated by the appellant for condoning the delay is reasonable and should have been condoned by the lower appellate authority, as it was within his condonable powers. However, the lower appellate authority, for reasons best known to him, has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeals as time barred.
3. It is well settled position of law that the delay has to be condoned, if sufficient cause is shown for the delay in filing of the appeal, which is the position in the present case. Therefore, the impugned order of the lower is not sustainable in law and we set aside the same. We direct the lower appellate authority to pass the order on merits after giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant of being heard before passing a fresh order. Thus, the appeals are allowed by way of remand. The early hearing applications are also disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in Court)
(Anil Choudhary) (P.R. Chandrasekharan)
Member (Judicial) Member (Technical)
Sinha
3