2004 (96) ECC 484 (Tri)

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

West Regional Bench -- Mumbai

Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) and Shri K.D. Mankar, Member (T)

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Versus

Reshma Trade Links Ltd. & Ors

Applications No. C/COD/151 to 165/04 in Appeals No. C/58 to 72/04

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 247 to 287/2002/MCH dated 30.4.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai]

Order No. A/387 to 401/WZB/2004-C-II; M/108 to 122/WZB/04-C-II, dt. 3.6.2004, Certified on 14.6.2004

Condoning the delay

A number of appeals were disposed of by the impugned order. The appeals in respect of imports made at Muland were filed within time, whereas in respect of the imports made at Mumbai, the order was accepted by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) initially, but subsequently the appeals were filed after the period of limitation. The Tribunal while dealing with the other appeals, has upheld the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Held, we are not inclined to condone the delay and take up the appeals on merits. Accordingly, condonation of delay applications are rejected. Inasmuch as the delay has not been condoned, appeals stand dismissed as barred by limitation.

Appeals are dismissed

PRESENT :

Shri K.L. Bablani, Jt. CDR for the appellant.

Shri Jerry Lewis, Shri Anil Balani, Advocates for the respondents.

Per : Smt. Archana Wadhwa

In all these applications the Revenue makes a prayer for condoning the delay of 1 year and 153 days in filling the present appeals against the impugned Order No. 247 to 287/2002-MCH dated 30.4.2002, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai.

2. Arguing on the application Shri Bablani, Ld. JCDR submits that the impugned order was received by the office of the Commissioner of Customs on 16.5.2002 and the same was accepted by the Commissioner of Customs on 5.8.2002. Thereafter, on 21.8.2003 a letter was received from the office of the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, wherein directions were issued stating that in an identical issue, an appeal has been preferred before the Tribunal, therefore, appeals be also failed in the present cases so as to maintain uniformity. As such, he submits that, the appeals were filed along with condonation of delay applications.

3. Countering the revenue's request for condoning the delay, Shri Anil Balani, Ld. Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the impugned order disposed of a number of appeals. Revenue filed the appeal against the orders relating to imports made at C.F.S. Muland, whereas in respect of the imports made at Mumbai, the order was accepted by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) initially, but subsequently the appeals were filed after the period of limitation. As regards the earlier appeals, which were filed by the revenue, he submits that the same stand rejected on merits by the Tribunal vide order No. A/12 to 37WZB/2004-CII dated 18.3.2004. As such, he submits that the revenue's appeal apart from the fact that there is no sufficient reason for condoning the delay, does not have any merits, the impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner having been confirmed by the Tribunal in the above referred matter.

4. After considering the submissions made by the Ld. Jt. CDR, we find that the impugned order disposed of number of appeals. Whereas the appeals were filed, in respect of imports made at Mulund within the time. Besides, the order was initially accepted by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) in respect of imports made at Mumbai. Subsequently, directions have been issued to file the appeal only to maintain uniformity, inasmuch as, the other appeals were filed against the same impugned order. We find that, the Tribunal while dealing with the other appeals, has upheld the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). As such, we are not inclined to condone the delay and take up the appeals on merits. Accordingly, condonation of delay applications are rejected. Inasmuch as the delay has not been condoned, appeals stand dismissed as barred by limitation.

…………………….