ORDER
M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)
1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 5-11-2004 wherein the appellants’ appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the question of limitation.
2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are : The appellants imported stock lot of Ceramic wall tiles and filed the Bill of Entry for the assessment by declaring the value of US $ 1.05 per sq. mtr. along with invoices and other documents. The authorities did not accept the said declared price and loaded the value by 60% and assessed the goods at the price of US $ 1.65 per sq mtr. The goods were cleared by the appellants on payment of assessed duty on 6-1-2004. The appellants were aggrieved by the loaded value and hence through their Advocates & Solicitor’s letter dated 24th February, 2004 requested the Deputy Commissioner of Customs to pass the speaking order in relation to the Bill of Entry on which the value was loaded. This letter did not elicit any information or response from the authorities. Subsequently, after following up by the appellants, on 30th May, 2004 the Office of the Commissioner of Customs, informed the appellants that in respect of assessed Bill of Entry, there is no need to give any appealable order. Thereafter, the appellants preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against the said Bill of Entry. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 5-11-2004, did not go into the merits and dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation itself.
3. The learned advocate appearing for the appellants I submits that, the Revenue authorities should have responded to the letter dated 24th February, 2004 asking for the appealable order. If the Revenue authorities would have granted them an appealable order or even they would have mentioned that the assessed Bill of Entry is itself an appealable order, they would have preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) in time. The learned advocate also contended that the appellants should not be put to difficulty by the actions of the Department.
4. The learned DR, on the other hand, submits that, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not gone into the merits of the case and has rejected the appeal only on the ground of limitation. He also contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) does not have power to condone the delay beyond 30 days in addition to the 60 days mandatory period given to the appellants for filing the appeal.
5. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. I find that the appellants’ appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation. The provisions of Section 128 of the Customs Act do not permit the appellate authority to condone any period beyond 30 days after the mandatory period of 60 days of appeal. In short, the Commissioner (Appeals) could not have entertained any appeal which has been filed beyond 90 days before him. The said Section prohibits him from going into the merits of the case. This was settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raymanshoes 2004 (172) E.L.T. A84 (S.C.). In respect of the appellants’ contention that Department should have responded to the letter dated 24th February, 2004, I find from the records that the said letter dated 24th February, 2004 was written by the appellants’ Advocates & Solicitors. I need not emphasise the fact that the Advocates & Solicitors are supposed to know the provisions of law before writing this letter. The provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 are very clear in respect of the assessment of Bill of Entry. Once the Bill of Entry is assessed, the aggrieved party has no other alternative, but to go in appeal against the said assessed Bill of Entry. Failure to do so, will be detrimental, at their own Cost. In this case, the appellants’ contention that they were ignorant of the law is ill-founded because their Advocates & Solicitors had requested for the speaking order in respect of the assessed Bill of Entry.
6. In view of the above circumstances, I find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated & pronounced in the open court)