N.B. FOOTWEAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Order -in -Original dated 15.12.2002, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Gr -4) assessed the goods imported by the appellants, to duty of Rs. 32,890/ - after rejecting their claim for the benefit of exemption under Customs Notification No. 32/97. Aggrieved by the Deputy Commissioner's decision, the assessee filed an appeal with the Commissioner of Customs (appeals) on 25.10.2004. The appellate authority found the appeal to be belated far beyond the condonable period of delay allowed under Section 128 of the Customs Act and accordingly the appeal was dismissed as time -barred. Hence the present appeal.

(2.) ON an earlier occasion, learned Counsel for the appellants had sought leave of the Bench to raise a jurisdictional objection and we allow, the same vide Misc. Order No. 257/2006 dated 15.05.2006. Accordingly, a new ground to the effect that the Deputy Commissioner of Customs was not competent to demand the above duty stands added to the grounds of this appeal. Both sides have been heard on the jurisdictional issue. Learned Counsel has relied on Rule 8 of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty) Rules, 1996, which reads as under:

(3.) ON the limitation issue, learned Counsel has submitted that the appellants had received a copy of the Order -in -Original only on 26.07.2004 from the Central Excise authorities and that their appeal, which was filed with the Commissioner (Appeals) on 25.10.2004, was within the condonable period of delay prescribed under Section 128. It is submitted that learned Commissioner (Appeals) erroneously computed the extent of delay and accordingly held that the appeal was far beyond the condonable period of delay. Learned Counsel submits that the appellate authority computed the period of delay with reference to the date on which the order of the Deputy Commissioner was displayed on the notice board of the Customs House (12.08.2003). It is his submission that, at best, the said date is only the date of service and not the date of communication of the order. It is submitted that the order was communicated when it was received from the Central Excise authorities on 26.07.2004. Whether the appeal filed against that order was within the statutory period of limitation should be considered on the basis of the date of communication rather than the date of service. In this connection, learned Counsel relies on the Tribunal's decision in Reliance Telecom Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi