HMT LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the appellants M/s. HMT Ltd. with reference to the impugned order no. C. Cus. 195 to 197/2000, dated 20 -3 -2000, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Customs House, Chennai. The appeal was also accompanied with stay application.

(2.) BY impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) has disposed of three appeals. According to the practice, the party was required to file three appeals. Apart from that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeals holding that the three appeals filed by the party before him were barred by time. He held that the maximum period of six months within which the appeal can be filed, but in all the three appeals delay in filing the claim is beyond condonable limits. Section 128 of the Customs Act 1962, is as under : - SECTION 128. Appeals to [Commissioner (Appeals)] - (1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by an officer of customs lower in rank than a (Commissioner of Customs) may appeal to the [Commissioner (Appeals)] within three months from the date of the Communication to him of such decision or order: Provided that the [Commissioner (Appeals)] may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months, allow it to be presented within a further period of three months. (2) Every appeal............

(3.) SH . Rajesh Chandra Kumar, ld. Adv., appearing for the appellants submitted that there was no delay in presenting the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). He said that the appeal was filed before the Deputy Commissioner and time consumed before the wrong forum, should be excluded in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Referring to the affidavit filed by the Accounts Officer, he said that appeals were filed before the Dy. Commissioner on 19 -7 -99, against the orders dated 29 -6 -99, and 30 -6 -99, respectively, passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Customs Group 3 and 4. He said that Accounts Officer was under the bona fide belief that the appeals paper had to be filed with the officer passing the order and same would be forwarded by them to the appellate authority. On the receipt of the letter from Dy. Commissioner Group 3 and 4, calling upon them to pay the duties demanded under the orders, he has approached the office of the Commissioner Customs (Appeals) to ascertain about the position of the appeals and on knowing that no appeal was filed, and in view of the advice given by the Superintendent (Appeals), fresh appeals were presented before the Commissioner (Appeals). Sh. Rajesh Chandra Kumar contended that in view of this position, there was no delay in filing the appeals and time consumed in the process is to be excluded applying the principle underlying Section 14 of the Limitation Act. He also drew our attention to Section 14 of the Limitation Act which is as under - The Limitation Act, 1963