Access Enterprises v Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Bangalore)

In the case of Access Enterprises v Commissioner of CustomsThe Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore has dismissed an appeal filed by Access Enterprises due to significant delay in filing. The appellant had imported automobile accessories and filed bill of entry for their clearance. However, following allegations of misrepresentation and undervaluation, the selection authority issued the original order No. 49/2014 on October 17, 2014, which not only rejected the declared value, but also imposed a fine and a penalty. Unsatisfied with this outcome, Access Enterprises appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant received the order on October 23, 2014, but did not file the appeal until November 13, 2015, resulting in a delay of 325 days beyond the legal deadline of January 20, 2015, as prescribed. by section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962.

During the hearing, counsel for the appellant argued that the delay was due to legitimate medical reasons, supported by an affidavit stating that the owner had been advised to undergo absolute bed rest, which was detrimental to his life. his ability to manage his affairs. However, the authorized representative of the Ministry of Finance strongly objected to this assertion, citing the absence of any provision in the Customs Act to allow for delay beyond the stipulated 90 days for filing an appeal with the Commissioner (calls). After considering arguments from both sides, the court reaffirmed the legal limitations for filing an appeal. Despite the appellant’s submission of the affidavit detailing the medical reasons for the delay, the court held that it had no authority to condone such delays within the existing legal framework.

Ultimately, CESTAT upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the need to respect statutory deadlines for filing appeals in accordance with the Customs Act. The order was delivered in open court on September 18, 2024, reiterating the importance of timely compliance with legal procedures in customs matters, regardless of the reasons for possible delays in filing appeals.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE

The appellant had imported automobile accessories and filed bill of entry for clearance of the goods. However, alleging the illegality of the importation, through false declaration and undervaluation, a procedure was initiated and the awarding authority, by original decree no. 49/2014 dated 17.10.2014, rejected the declared value , also increased it and imposed a fine and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), who, as per the impugned order, dismissed the appeal on the ground that as per the evidence available on record, the appellant was served with the original order challenged on 23.10.2014, and the appeal was filed only on 13.11.2015. Since the appeal should have been filed on or before January 20, 2015, in accordance with section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962, the appeal is dismissed for delay of 325 days. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed.

2. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsels vehemently contended that they had a strong case on merits and filed an affidavit specifying the medical reasons for the delay. According to the affidavit filed by the appellant, the doctors advised the appellant’s landlord to stay in bed and due to this he could not carry out his daily business activities.

3. The learned Authorized Representative (AR) of the Ministry of Finance vehemently objected to the ground raised by the appellant and submitted that there is no provision in the Customs Act, 1962 to excuse delay in filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) beyond the statutory period of 90(ninety) days.

4. I have heard both sides and gone through the records.

5. We conclude that even though the appellant filed an affidavit and contended that the delay in filing the appeal was due to medical reasons and beyond the control of the appellant, considering the statutory time limit for filing the appeal appeal, this Tribunal has no power to tolerate delay. when filing the appeal, as maintained by the appellant authority. The appeal is therefore not sustainable.

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

(Order pronounced in public hearing on 18.09.2024)