M/S.Indian Pipes Pvt .Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Customs

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 01.3.2016 Coram :

The Honourable Mr.Justice V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN and The Honourable Mr.Justice N.KIRUBAKARAN Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.300 of 2016 M/s.Indian Pipes Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-34.

...Appellant Vs 1.The Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennai-1.

2.The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai-6.

...Respondents

APPEAL under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the order dated 28.8.2015 made in Final Order No.41077/2015 in Appeal No.C/40551/ 2015 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai. For Appellant : Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan For Respondent : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran Judgment was delivered by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J The assessee has come up with the above appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 challenging an order of the second respondent herein refusing to condone the delay of about 250 days in filing the appeal.

2. Heard Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the appellant/ assessee and Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

3. The appellant/assessee has filed a refund application on 14.10.2011 claiming to be an amount paid against 4% additional duty of customs levied under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. By an Order in Original dated 18.9.2012, the refund claim was rejected and the same was also confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by an order dated 3.4.2014. As against https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

the Order in Original and the order in appeal, the appellant filed a further appeal before the Tribunal with a delay. The Tribunal refused to condone the delay on the ground that the delay was not properly explained. Hence, the assessee is before us.

4. In the affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay, the assessee stated that they did not receive the order in appeal from the office of the Commissioner. They also vacated the premises in December 2013 after closure of the business. But, they received a communication from their advocate on 24.7.2014. This communication did not include a copy of the order. Therefore, the appellant claims that they got the copy of the order and came to know about its contents only 23.12.2014.

5. In the light of the fact that the appellant had closed its business in December 2013, which fact is not seriously disputed, the Tribunal could have adopted a pragmatic approach. In cases of this nature, especially when the claim for refund is rejected, the assessee does not stand to lose by protracting the proceedings. Therefore, a pedantic approach is not what is warranted in this case.

6. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall condone the delay, take up the appeal and dispose of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. No costs.

-s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Custom House, 60 Rajaji Salai Chennai-1.

2.The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench Haddows Road Shastri Bhawan, Chennai-6 +1 cc to Mr.K.Sudhakar Advocate sr.13393 +1 cc to Mr.T.chandrasekaran Advocate sr.12937 + 1 cc to Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate Sr 13394 (29/3/16) CMA.No.300 of 2016 aa16/03/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/