ORDER
K.K. Bhatia, Member (T)
1. The appellants imported Zinc Dross in three consignments at the ICD TKD, New Delhi. For the clearance of these consignments, they filed three Bills of Entry No. 105515, dt. 6-6-96, No. 106994, dated 25-7-96 and No. 106756, dated 17-7-96. The Customs authorities considered the goods hazardous in nature and initiated proceedings against the importers. These proceedings culminated in the Deputy Commissioner of Customs passing three separate Orders-in-Original viz., dt. 3-10-96, dt. 31-10-96 and dt. 3-10-96 in respect of the goods imported under the above said Bills of Entry. In these orders, the Dy. Commissioner of Customs observed that the imported goods being hazardous in nature were restricted items and since the importers did not possess the requisite licence, the goods became liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1962. Accordingly, he ordered for the confiscation of the goods but however, gave an option to the importers to redeem the three consignments on payment of fines of Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- respectively in respect of the consignments. The adjudicating authority further imposed the penalties of Rs. 25,000/-, Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- on the appellants. The party filed appeals against the aforesaid three orders but the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi vide his composite order dated 7-12-2001 rejected all the three appeals. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has observed that the appellants had filed the appeals on 23-7-98. They contended that the above orders were conveyed to them only on 18-7-98. The Commissioner has observed that the assessments were finalised in all the three cases in October, 1996 itself; that the speaking orders had been passed on 3-10-96, 31-10-96 and 3-10-96 in respect of the three Bills of Entry in question; that the appellants voluntarily deposited the duty, the redemption fines and the personal penalties imposed in these orders on 8-10-96, 4-11-96 and 5-10-96 respectively without registering any protest. The plea of the appellants that the speaking orders were received by them only in July, 1998 after repeated requests is rejected by Commissioner (Appeals) with the observation that they failed to adduce any documentary evidence in support of their contention. He has observed that the proximity between the dates of the Orders-in-Original and deposit of duty, personal penalties and redemption fines by the appellant goes to prove that the appellant was very much aware of these orders. He has further observed that the appeals could have been filed even on the basis of the assessments finalised on the Bills of Entry itself without any speaking orders being passed; that the Act provided at the relevant time for an appeal to be filed within three months from the date of the Order-in-Original. Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the party on the grounds of limitation.
2. These appeals are against the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Shri Ajai Jain, Advocate for the appellants and Shri A.S. Bedi, SDR for the respondents. The matters are posted today for the purpose of admission. The Id. Counsel for the appellants submits that though the assessments were finalised and the appellants had paid the duties, fines and penalties in 1996 itself but they were not provided with the speaking orders in respect of the penal action taken against them. On their repeated requests, they were provided with the three orders by the customs authorities which were received by them on 23-7-98 and they filed the appeals on 21-10-98 which is well within the period provided for filing the appeal under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. In support of his contention, the ld. Counsel for the appellants has produced before me the original copies of the aforesaid three orders. These orders bear the despatch numbers viz., No. 7563, dt. 18-7-98, No. 7645, dt. 18-7-98 and No. 7649, dated 18-7-98 assigned by that office. I have considered these submissions. It is observed that when the original authority himself has chosen to pass speaking orders in the matter before him and has despatched them to the importers belatedly after a period of two years, one cannot contend that if desired, they could have filed the appeals even on the basis of the assessments finalised on the Bills of Entry without any speaking order being passed. It is evident from the despatch numbers and the dates assigned by the office of the original authority that the speaking orders in this case though passed in 1996, were despatched to the appellants after a period of two years. On consideration of these facts and on perusal of the original copies of the orders passed by the Dy. Commissioner produced before me, I am convinced that the appeals filed by them before the lower appellate authority are not barred by limitation. I therefore allow the admission of these appeals, grant the stay to the appellants, set aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and remand the matter to him for de novo consideration of the appeals on merits as per law. The appellants shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing before taking the final view in the matter.
3. The appeals are thus allowed by remand in above terms.