Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Honda Siel Power Products Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs - Chennai Vii ... on 26 February, 2020
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. - III
Customs Appeal No. 41732 of 2019
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal ACC C. Cus. I No. 142/2019 dated 23.8.2019
passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals - I), Chennai
M/s. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. Appellant
Plot No. 5, Sector 41 (KASNA)
Gautam Buddha Nagar
Uttar Pradesh - 201 310.
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs Respondent
Chennai VII Commissionerate Air Cargo Complex, Meenambakkam Chennai - 600 027.
APPEARANCE:
Ms. K. Nancy, Advocate for the Appellant Ms. T. Usha Devi, DC (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Hon'ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Final Order No. 40544 / 2020 Date of Hearing: 26.02.2020 Date of Decision: 26.02.2020 Brief facts are that the appeal filed by the appellant before Commissioner (Appeals) was rejected as being time-barred. The Order-in-Original against which appeal was filed before Commissioner (Appeals) was passed on 23.8.2018. But same was dispatched on 28.8.2018 and the appellant received it on 5.9.2018. They filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) on 2.11.2018 which is well within 60 days of communication of the order. The Commissioner (Appeals) computed the period of limitation from the date of dispatch instead from the date of communication of the order. Thus, the appeal was dismissed as being time-barred. On 17.1.2020, when the 2 matter came up for hearing, ld. counsel Shri S.Murugappan appearing for the appellant adverted to page 36 of the appeal records and submitted that the date of dispatch as per the postal records is 28.8.2018. Thus, the impugned order has been dispatched on 28.8.2018 and the appellant has received it only on 5.9.2018 which is clear from the postal cover enclosed in page 36. If the period of limitation is computed from 5.9.2018, the appeal filed before Commissioner (Appeals) would be within 60 days. In order to verify this aspect, ld. AR was directed to file a report. The case was then adjourned to this date.
2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, ld. counsel for appellant Ms. K. Nancy reiterated the submissions made earlier with regard to limitation. The ld. AR Ms. T. Usha Devi submitted that although a letter was sent to the concerned Commissionerate, no reply has been received so far.
3. Heard both sides.
4. On perusal of records, I find that the date of receipt shown in the postal cover is 5.9.2018. Thus, period of limitation can be computed only from 5.9.2018. The appeal then would be within the prescribed time limit. The finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appeal is time-barred is set aside. On merits, the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the issue in favour of appellant. The appeal filed by appellant is therefore allowed with consequential relief if any.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (SULEKHA BEEVI C.S.) Member (Judicial) Rex