M/S. Sri Sairam Agro Foods vs. The Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise (Appeals) Coimbatore

Held

The Court held that the matter required detailed consideration, particularly given the petitioner's assertion of not having received a show cause notice, not being heard before the Order-in-Original, and not having been served the order. To balance the interests of both parties, the Court decided to remit the case back to the first respondent, the Appellate Commissioner, for a fresh adjudication. The petitioner was granted the liberty to request the Appellate Commissioner to summon the relevant records before passing final orders. This exercise was directed to be completed within six weeks from the date of receiving the order. The Court did not decide on the merits of the limitation issue or the underlying penalty, but rather ensured a procedural fairness for the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sri Sairam Agro Foods, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals). The impugned order dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the grounds of limitation, as it was filed beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal was against an Order-in-Original dated 16.02.2024, which imposed penalties totaling Rs. 7,50,000/- on the petitioner for attempting to export prohibited "Indian Big Onions" and mis-declaring the cargo. The petitioner claims they did not file any shipping bill or receive a show cause notice, and were falsely implicated by a Custom House Agent. The Order-in-Original also imposed a penalty on the Custom House Agent, M/s. Pentagon Shipping Service, which was set aside by the appellate authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's appeal before the first respondent was rightly dismissed on the ground of limitation under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962? The petitioner argued that they had neither exported nor filed any shipping bill, nor had they filed the letter dated 13.02.2024, which was relied upon by the authorities. They contended that they were falsely implicated and that the Order-in-Original was passed without proper notice or hearing. The respondents, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, drew attention to a letter dated 13.02.2024, purportedly from the petitioner, accepting that big and small onions were mixed in the cargo and agreeing to pay fines and penalties. The respondents' contention implicitly supports the dismissal of the appeal on limitation, as the petitioner's own alleged admission would have been a basis for the original order.