Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Ltd vs Designated Authority, Mof on 24 August, 2015
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No.2, R. K. Puram, New Delhi, Court No. 1 Date of hearing/decision: 24.08.2015 For Approval and Signature: Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President Honble Mr. R. K. Singh, Member (Technical) Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Anti Dumping Appeal No. 8 of 2010 with Anti Dumping CoD Application No. 192 of 2010, AD Misc. No. 759 of 2010 and AD Stay application No. 1292 of 2010 (Arising out of F. No. 14/12/2007-DGAD and Customs Notification No. 226/3009-Customs dated 08.10.2009 passed by the Designated Authority, Anti Dumping Directorate, Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, New Delhi). M/s Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Designated Authority, MoF Respondent
Appearance:
Sh. Seetharaman S., Sh. Atul Gupta, Shri Ankur Sharma, Advocates for the appellant.
Shri Amit Singh, Advocate for the Designated Authority Shri Govind Dixit, DR for Revenue Respondent Ms. Reena Khair and Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Advocates for the interested parties.
Coram: Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President Honble Mr. R. K. Singh, Member (Technical) Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) Final Order No. 52676 / 2015 Per: Justice G. Raghuram:
Condonation of a delay of 23 days is sought in this application. The applicant is an importer and user of the subject goods and has preferred the substantive appeal against the Final Finding dated 26.08.2009 issued by the Designated Authority and the Customs Notification No. 116/2009-Customs dated 08.10.2009 issued by the Central Government. In terms of Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 the appeal should have been preferred by 08.01.2010. However, the appeal was preferred on 29.04.2010. Against the orders and Notification impugned in the appeal, the applicant initially preferred a Writ Petition before the Honble Bombay High Court inter-alia assailing the Final Findings, the Customs Notification as well as provisions of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995.
2. By the order dated 23.03.2010 in Writ Petition No. 83 of 2010 the High Court in Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Designated Authority 2010 (252) ELT 321 (Bom.) and for reasons recorded therein rejected the applicants challenge to the Final Findings and the Customs Notification but retained the Writ Petition for consideration of the challenge to the vires of the Rules, 1995. While doing so, the High Court granted three weeks to the applicant for filing an appeal before this Tribunal.
3. Normally, in the context of the applicant having moved the High Court for judicial review and the Honble High Court relegating the applicant to pursue appellate remedy before this Tribunal, we would have exercised the discretion available under Section 9C and would have condoned the delay. It is however noticed that the Honble High Court had fixed three weeks as the specified time for the applicant to file an appeal before this Tribunal. This limit fixed by the High Court has been transgressed by 23 days in preferring the appeal. Condonation of this delay i.e. extension of the limit prescribed by the High Court is not within the province of this Tribunal.
4. For the aforesaid reasons we reject the application for condonation of delay and consequently the miscellaneous application, the stay application and the appeal as well.
(Justice G. Raghuram) President (R. K. Singh) Member (Technical) (Sulekha Beevi C.S.) Member (Judicial) Pant