By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JAN 19, 2016: THE appellants were licenced under CHALR. In respect of a consignment imported by Kulkarni Impex the role of the appellants was examined andafter due process the licence was cancelled by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai.

The appellants contested the decision on various grounds but the ground of limitation was not one of those.

During the hearing before the CESTAT, the appellants raised the ground of limitation for the first time. It is the submission of the appellant that limitation being a question of law could be permitted to be raised. They relied on the Bombay High Court decision in Jam Shri Ranjit Singhji Spg and Wvg Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. UOI.

Reliance was also inter alia placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT; Tribunal decision in the case of Nylex Traders Vs. CC (P) - 2011-TIOL-914-CESTAT-MUM, Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2007-TIOL-1675-CESTAT-MAD.

The AR asserted that limitation is not a pure question of law but also of facts and the same cannot be raised without notice and without filing a miscellaneous application for inclusion of additional grounds.

The Bench observed -

"4. …. It is seen that the question of limitation has neither been raised during original proceeding before adjudicating authority nor has it been incorporated as a ground of appeal in the appeal memo nor has it been sought to be included by miscellaneous application for inclusion of fresh grounds. In these circumstances and the case law cited above, while we cannot ignore the submissions on limitation, we cannot also given findings without giving Revenue an adequate opportunity to give findings on the same. We are left with no option but to set aside the order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority to give findings on the issue of limitation…."

The Commissioner was directed to decide the matter within three months.

(See 2016-TIOL-198-CESTAT-MUM)