Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2021 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 1023 - AT - CustomsCondonation of delay in filing appeal before the Commissioner (appeals) - EPCG License - head race tunnel - EPCG License / authorization for duty saved value for import of capital goods - non-compliance with the requirement to furnish prescribed documents for the same within 3 months from the expiry of the block years - N/N. 97/2004-Cus dated 17.09.2004 - HELD THAT:- The EPCG authorization was issued in favour of the appellant way back in the year 2004. Under the said authorization, appellant imported a machine by saving a custom duty of ₹ 9,56,32,082/- which was against the license value of ₹ 76,50,566.56. However, it is apparent that the completion of export obligation was never brought to the notice of the concerned Department during the time stipulated in the Notification No.097/2004-Cus dated 17.09.2004, as is apparent from the letter dated 21.04.2015 as produced by the appellant. Perusal of this letter, in addition, clarifies the acknowledgment of the appellant about receiving the Show Cause Notice dated 25.03.2013 on 30.03.2015. Hence the appellant’s own document is sufficient to falsify the appellant’s submission that Show Cause Notice was never received by the appellant. By the time of reply dated April 21, 2015 even the O-I-O dated 21.03.2014 was passed. There is no cogent evidence about the proof of service, nor there is cogent explanation as to why the O-I-O was served upon Delhi address despite that the address mentioned by the appellant for its registered office was that of Bangalore. It is further observed that there is no denial about the date of receipt of recovery proceedings and receipt of O-I-O by the appellant on 6th January, 2017. Commissioner (Appeals) is observed to have been silent about any cogent reason for not considering 6.01.2017 as the date of receipt. Accordingly, matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals). In accordance whereof the Commissioner (Appeal) has no authority to condone the delay of more than 90 days from the date of communication of the order assailed before him. There is no infirmity in the order under challenge but in view of the discussion and keeping in view that the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) was filed well within the period of 90 days from 6th January, 2017, the date of communication of Order-in-Original to the appellant, the matter is remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals) directing him to rehear the matter after condoning the delay of 28 days and to adjudicate denovo on the merits of the case - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|