CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI REGIONAL BENCH CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 86233 OF 2025 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. MUM-CUS-TK-IMP 214 & 215/2024-25/NCH dated 10/03/2025 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai Customs Zone-

I)

Parekh Cranes and Machinery …..Appellant Flat No.5, Gr. Floor, Bharat Kunj, Bapubhai Vahi Raod, Vile Parle West Mumbai – 400 056 versus Commissioner of Customs (Import), …..Respondent New Custom House, Ballard Estate Mumbai–400001 WITH CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 86234 OF 2025 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. MUM-CUS-TK-IMP 214 & 215/2024-25/NCH dated 10/03/2025 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai Customs Zone-

I)

Manan Manoj Parekh …..Appellant Flat No.5, Gr. Floor, Bharat Kunj, Bapubhai Vahi Raod, Vile Parle West Mumbai – 400 056 versus Commissioner of Customs (Import), …..Respondent New Custom House, Ballard Estate Mumbai–400001 APPEARANCE:

Shri Chirag Shetty, Advocate for the Appellants Shri Dinesh Nanal, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT HON’BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

DATE OF HEARING: 17.04.2026 DATE OF DECISION: 17.04.2026 FINAL ORDER NO’s. 85565-85566/2026 JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA:

These appeals have been filed for setting aside the order dated March 10, 2025 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) by which the appeals that were filed by the appellants against order dated May 16, 2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs have been dismissed for the reason that the appeals were filed beyond the period prescribed under section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962¹

2. Section 128(1) of the Customs Act deals with filing of appeals before Commissioner (Appeals). It provides that any person aggrieved by any order passed by an officer of customs lower in rank than the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, may appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) within 60 days from the date of communication to him of such order. The proviso, however, stipulates that the Commissioner (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of sixty days, allow it to be presented within a further period of thirty days.

3. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the order dated May 16, 2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner was served upon the appellant on May 22, 2024. The appeal was, however, filed on August 22, 2024. It was, therefore, filed beyond two days after the expiry of initial period of 60 days and the extended period of 30 days contemplated under section 128(1) of the Customs Act and this fact of filing after two days has been admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant.

4. The appellant had filed an application for condonation of delay in terms of the proviso to section 128(1) of the Customs Act. The relevant paragraphs of the application are reproduced below

1. the Customs Act “2. That the Applicant herein has this day filed an appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 26/ADC/MKJ/ADJ/2024r-25 dated 16.05.2024 ('Impugned Order') passed by the Ld. Additional Commissioner of Customs, Adjudication Cell, Import-I, New Customs House, Mumbai Zone-I.

3. That the Applicant received Order-in-Original dated 16.05.2024 on 22.05.2024 and the normal period for filing the appeal were till 22.07.2024 but the appeal is filing today on 22.08.2024 with a delay of

30 days.

4. That the facts of the case in brief are that the Applicant had filed Bill of Entry No. 3935302 dated 28.12.2022 for clearance of 'ONE UNIT OLD & USED NACELLE CAMION W/ MULTTTEL J360 TELESCOPIC BOOMLIFT Sr. No. XLEP8X40005221725 with accessories' under CTH 84279000. However, the department has pointed out the Applicant has wrongly classified the goods under CTH 84279000 as the same are classifiable under CTH 87059000. Further, the Ld. Additional Commissioner has passed the impugned order without considering the