Sangeetha Tex vs. The Commissioner Of GST And C Ex (Appeals)

Held

The Court held that while the Appellate Commissioner's order rejecting the appeal on limitation was strictly in accordance with the Customs Act, 1962, the duty drawback is an export incentive, and the petitioner claims to be in possession of the relevant Bank Realization Certificate. Considering these factors and the petitioner's willingness to deposit the entire disputed amount of Rs. 2,59,517/-, the Court was inclined to rescue the petitioner. The impugned order of the Appellate Commissioner was quashed, and the case was remitted back to the Assistant Commissioner (BRC), Tuticorin, to pass a fresh order. The petitioner was directed to deposit the disputed amount within thirty days and to file requisite documents, including the Bank Realization Certificate, to substantiate their claim. The deposited amount is to be refunded if the proceedings are dropped. The Court expressly left undecided the merits of the petitioner's claim for duty drawback.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sangeetha Tex, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Commissioner of GST and C.EX (Appeals). The petitioner received an order in original dated 22.09.2020 from the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, only on 16.02.2023. Due to the proprietor's health issues, the petitioner could not file an appeal within the time prescribed under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Appellate Commissioner rejected the appeal solely on the ground of limitation. The petitioner contended that they have a strong case on merits and the appeal should not be rejected on limitation alone. The disputed amount is Rs. 2,59,517/-.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition challenging an order of the Appellate Commissioner that rejected an appeal on the grounds of limitation under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, when the petitioner claims a meritorious case. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that their meritorious case should not be rejected solely on the ground of limitation, especially considering the delay in receiving the order in original and the proprietor's health issues. They relied on the principle that substantive justice should prevail over technicalities. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the writ petition is not maintainable as the Appellate Commissioner's order was strictly in accordance with the limitation prescribed under the Customs Act, 1962. They relied on Supreme Court decisions in Singh Enterprises Vs CCE (2008) 3 SCC 70 and CCE and Customs Vs. Hongo India (P) Limited (2009) 5 SCC 791, which have been followed in subsequent cases, to support their contention that the appeal rejection order cannot be interfered with.