CESTAT Rejected Objection Due to 325-Day Application Delay

Commissioner of Access Enterprises and Customs (CESTAT Bangalore)

In the case of Access Companies and Customs CommissionerThe Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, dismissed the appeal filed by Access Enterprises due to significant delay in filing the application. The appellant had imported car accessories and had submitted a bill of entry for their permit. However, following allegations of misrepresentation and undervaluation, the Judicial Authority issued Decree No. 49/2014 on 17 October 2014, rejecting the declared value as well as imposing fines and administrative penalties. Unsatisfied with this outcome, Access Enterprises appealed to the Commissioner (Objections). The Commissioner dismissed the appeal, arguing that the appellant had received the decision on 23 October 2014 but only lodged the appeal on 13 November 2015, resulting in a delay of 325 days beyond the mandated statutory deadline of 20 January 2015. In accordance with Article 129 of the Customs Act 1962.

During the hearing, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the delay was due to legitimate medical reasons and this was supported by an affidavit stating that the proprietor was advised to undergo absolute bed rest and that this was hindering his ability to manage business affairs. However, the authorized representative of the Revenue Administration firmly opposed this contention, arguing that there was no provision in the Customs Act permitting condonation of delays beyond the prescribed period of 90 days for lodging an objection with the Commissioner (Objections). Having considered the arguments of both parties, the court reaffirmed the legal limitations on appeals. Despite the appellant submitting an affidavit detailing the medical reasons for the delay, the court argued that it had no authority to condone such delays under the existing legal framework.

Ultimately, CESTAT upheld the Commissioner’s decision (Objections) and rejected the objection, emphasizing that legal deadlines must be observed when raising objections under the Customs Code. The decision was delivered in open court on 18 September 2024, reiterating the importance of timely compliance with due process in customs matters, regardless of the reasons for any delay in appeals.

FULL TEXT OF ITAT BANGALOR ORDER

The Appellant imported car accessories and submitted a bill of entry for clearance of the goods. However, a lawsuit was filed alleging illegality in importation due to misrepresentation and incomplete declaration of value, and the Supreme Court, by its Decision dated 17.10.2014 and numbered 49/2014, rejected the declared value, increased the value and imposed fines and fines. Aggrieved by that decision, an appeal was lodged before the Commissioner (Appeals); According to the decision complained of, the Commissioner rejected the objection on the grounds that, according to the available evidence on record, he had received the Original Order that was the subject of the appeal on 23.10.2014. and the objection was made only on 13.11.2015. Since the objection must have been made on or before 20.01.2015 in accordance with Article 129 of the 1962 Customs Law, the objection was rejected due to a delay of 325 days. Aggrieved by the said decision, the present appeal has been filed.

2. When the matter came up for hearing, Learned Counsel argued strongly that they had a good case on merits and filed an affidavit stating medical reasons for the delay. According to the affidavit filed by the appellant, the owner of the appellant was advised by the doctors to undergo absolute bed rest and was therefore unable to participate in daily work activities.

3. The learned Authorized Representative (AR) of the Revenue strongly opposed the ground advanced by the appellant and submitted that there is no provision in the Customs Act, 1962 to condone delay in filing an appeal before the Commissioner beyond the statutory period (Objections). 90 (ninety) days.

4. I have heard both sides and reviewed the records.

5. We find that though the appellant has filed an affidavit and claimed that the delay in filing the appeal was due to medical reasons and was beyond the control of the appellant, in view of the statutory limitation of filing the appeal, this Court has no jurisdiction to condone the delay. in presenting the appeal in the same manner as the appellant. Therefore, the objection is not sustainable.

6. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.

(The order was announced in open court 18.09.2024)