Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Shri Himanshu C Sopariwala Versus Commissioner of Customs-Ahmedabad

2016 (4) TMI 969 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Maintainability - Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed appeal filed as not maintainable on the ground that he has powers to hear the appeals which are filed within 60 days extendable by 30 days only, as per Section 128 of the Customs Act 1962.

Held that:- appellant had received the impugned Order in Original on 31.10.2012. However, he could not file the appeal within the prescribed time limit because of his personal pre-occupations. He prepared the appeal and sent the same to the Office o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

impugned Order in Appeal dismissing the appeal field by the appellant as not maintainable is proper and legally correct. - Decided against the appellant - Appeal No. : C/11463/2015 - Order No. A/10332 / 2016 - Dated:- 22-4-2016 - MR. P.M.SALEEM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Appellant : Shri N Gheewala, Consultant For the Respondent : Shri S K Shukla, Authorised Representative ORDER PER : MR.P.M.SALEEM, This appeal is filed by Mr Himanshu C Sopariwala, Surat, against the impugned order dtd 2.7.2015 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed by the appellant as not maintainable on the ground that he has powers to hear the appeals which are filed within 60 days extendable by 30 days only, as per Section 128 of the Customs Act 1962. He further submits that these are statutory time limits prescribed under the Customs Act 1962 and that the Tribunal does not have any powers or authority to relax the time limit and therefore the appeal is not maintainable and should be dismissed outright. 3. On the other hand, the Ld Counsel for the ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to know about non-filing of the appeal only much later when the Dept had taken steps for recovery of the dues at which point of time they made enquiries with the courier and learned that the courier had misplaced the appeal papers. Therefore, they filed a fresh appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals) with the delay of more than two years. The Ld Counsel submits that the circumstances should have been considered and the delay should have been condoned. He further submits that they have got strong .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

bunal, while filing the present appeal, the relevant portion of which is reproduced below: I was late in filing an appeal before Commissioner (Appeal), Customs, Ahmedabad within in a period of two months from the date of receipt of OIO on account of the following reasons : The impugned OIO was received by me on 31.10.2012 and after gong through, at the material time I had the intention to file the appeal but during the period my father because of old age was not keeping good health on account of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Asstt Commissioner, Customs, Surat for recovery of penalty of ₹ 2,00,000/- imposed vide OIO no 35/ADC-HSN/O&A/2012 dated 19.10.2012issed by Additional Commissioner, Customs, Ahmedabad. On receipt of this letter immediately it strucked to my mind about the appeal to be filed and immediately an advocate was consulted and accordingly I am filing appeal alongwith this application for condonation of delay fo favour of consideration by your honour. The appeal with condonation of delay was fi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e of the Commissioner (Appeals), since the maximum time limit for filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is 90 days only as per Section 128 of the Customs Act 1962. 6. On careful consideration of the arguments of both sides and perusal of records, we find that the appellant had received the impugned Order in Original on 31.10.2012. However, he cold not file the appeal within the prescribed time limit because of his personal pre-occupations. He prepared the appeal and sent the same t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or more than 30 days. Therefore, we find that the impugned Order in Appeal dismissing the appeal field by the appellant as not maintainable is proper and legally correct. 7. We find fort in our above view in the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises vs. CCE, Jamshedpur - 2008(221)ELT.163(S.C.), which held as follows: The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) as also the Tribunal being creatures of Statute are vested with jurisdiction to condone the delay beyon .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version