LAWS(MAD)-2016-6-303

FALCON TYPES LTD Vs. CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL; COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (SEAPORT-IMPORT)

Decided On June 15, 2016
Falcon Types Ltd Appellant
V/S
Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal; Commissioner Of Customs (Seaport-Import) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the Final Order No.40100 of 2016, dated 25.01.2016, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), South Zonal Bench, Chennai 600 006, declining to entertain the appeal, as time barred.

(2.) Short facts leading to the appeal are that the appellant submitted a Bill of Entry on 26.08.2006, for import of natural rubber and the goods were assessed. Part of goods were cleared duty-free and part of goods were cleared on payment of appropriate customs duty on 13.09.2006. Appellant has contended that the order of assessment, dated 26.08.2006, was erroneous, on the grounds that the imported goods are classifiable under CTH 4001 22 00 under CN 21/2002 Sl.No.491, which attracts duty at the rate of 20% + Nil + 2% + 4%, and at the time of assessment, the goods were classified under CTH 400110.10, which attracts higher duty and at the time of assessment, the same was not noticed by them. The appellant has contended that when they opted for reassessment of bill of entry, the same was not accepted by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (DEEC), Customs House, Chennai and thus, in the abovesaid circumstances, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai, with delay. They has prayed to condone the delay, as a special case. That apart, they have also submitted an application for refund of excess duty. While considering the prayer for condonation, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai, has summariesed their case, as hereunder:

(3.) By inviting the attention of this Court to a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M.P.Steel Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2015 7 SCC 58, Mr.N.Viswanathan, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that CESTAT, Chennai, ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal. In the reported judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, to an appeal, filed under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, deals with exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in Court, without jurisdiction and the said Section is extracted hereunder: