Judgements

Sharad Kumar P. Agarwal vs Commissioner Of Customs (P), … on 23 March, 2001

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Mumbai
Sharad Kumar P. Agarwal vs Commissioner Of Customs (P), … on 23 March, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001 (76) ECC 487, 2001 (132) ELT 111 Tri Mumbai


ORDER

JH Joglekar, Member (T)

1. This application seeks condonation of delay of 620 days in filing of the appeal. I have heard Shri Vipin Kumar Jain, C.A. for the applicant and Smt. Reena Arya, SDR for the Revenue.

2. This application has a very interesting history. 800 tolas of gold was seized from the applicant’s custody by the police. The gold was later transferred to the Customs and was confiscated. On 12.6.68, the Central Board of Excise and Customs in their Appellate capacity set aside the confiscation and granted relief. The department had offered release of the gold in August, 68. For reasons best known to himself, the owner filed the application for release of the gold only in December 1997 i.e. nearly 30 years after the offer of release. Within a week, the Customs replied to the effect that the particular gold had been sent to the Mint with the observation that “further action for delivery of the said gold is under progress”. On 10.6.99, however, a letter was issued under the signature of the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) to the effect that the claim was barred by limitation. Against this order, the present applicant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) The Commissioner (A) Allowed his appeal and remanded the proceedings back to the Asst. Commissioner to decide the case afresh and for giving a detailed speaking order. The Revenue filed the appeal against this order which was disposed of by the Tribunal vide its final order NO. C.I/129-30/01-WZB dated 18.1.01. The ld. Single Member accepted the claim of the department that the letter dated 10.6.99 was the decision of the Commissioner and was merely communicated by the Asstt. Commissioner. The Tribunal held that the order passed by the Commissioner was without jurisdiction. This order was received by the present applicant and an appeal was filed with the present application for condonation of delay.

3. On hearing both the sides, I find that in the very peculiar circumstances, the delay, although of great magnitude, deserves to be condoned. It is so ordered.