Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CESTAT) 2440
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONAL BENCH : KOLKATA
R. Muralidhar, Member (Judicial)
M/S. IMPRESSIONAL FOTO – Appellant
Versus
KOLKATA-PORT – Respondent
Customs Appeal No. 75351 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Atika Sumran Ahmed
For the Respondents: S. Chakroborty
Limitation for filing an appeal is calculated from the actual date of receipt of the order; typographical errors in departmental communications do not override factual evidence of the date of service.
Headnote:The matter involves a challenge against an Order-in-Appeal where the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed an appeal on the grounds of limitation, asserting it was filed beyond the 90-day period. The appellant contended that the Order-in-Original was not received on the date of issuance and was only provided via email on 21.05.2024 following a formal request dated 09.05.2024. The primary issue was whether the appeal was filed within the prescribed limitation period based on the actual date of receipt of the order. The court observed that while the department's email contained a typographical error regarding the order number in the body, the attachment and the reference to the appellant's request letter confirmed the actual date of communication, thereby establishing that the appeal was filed within the normal period of two months. The appeal stands disposed off thus.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against dismissal of appeal due to limitation period. (Para 1) |
| 2. contention regarding actual date of receipt of order versus date of issuance. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. rectification of typographical errors in official communication to determine limitation. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. remand of matter for verification of evidence and decision on merits. (Para 6 , 7) |
Order : [Per Shri R.Muralidhar]
The appellant is before the Tribunal being aggrieved the O-I-A wherein the Commissioner (Appeal) has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground that the same was filed beyond the 90 days period. As per the Commissioner (Appeals), the appeal was filed after 90 days i.e. beyond the condonation period of 30 days. Being aggrieved the appellant has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.
2. The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the Commissioner (Appeal) has considered the date of service of O-I-O as 06.03.2024 which is the actual date of the O-I-O. She submits that since this O-I-O was not received by the appellant, they had submitted a letter on 09.05.2024 seeking the copy of the O-I-O. vide e-mail dated 21.05.2024, the department has sent the copy of the O-I-O. It should be taken as date of receipt of O-I-O. Once the date of receipt of O-I-O is taken as 21st May, 2024, the filing of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal) on 19.07.2024 will be within the 60 days period allowed for filing such appeals. She produces the copy of the letter dated 09.05.2024 seeking the copy of the O-I-O and the screen shot of the email received from the Revenue Department enclosing therewith the impugned order No. KOL/CUS/PORT/ADC /Gr-V/18/2024 dated 06.03.2024. In view of these submissions she prays that the appeal may be taken up for disposal at the Tribunal itself.
3. The Ld. Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that the Commissioner (Appeal) has noted in the O-I-A that the appellant has produced the copy of the email wherein order No. KOL/CUS/PORT/ADC/Gr-V/46/2024 has been forwarded. Therefore, he has held that the appellant has not been able to produce proper evidence towards delayed receipt of the O-I-O. He prays that the appeal may be dismissed.
4. I have gone through the appeal papers and the documentary evidence submitted by the appellant. The copy of the letter dated 09/05.2024 from the appellant and email in question is reproduced below:
[[IMG_1]]
[[IMG_2]]
5. I find that in the e-mail dated 21.05.2024, the O-I-O No. KOL/CUS/PORT/ADC/GR.V/46/2024 dated 16.05.2024 has been mentioned. However, the attachment pertains to O-I-O No. KOL/CUS/PORT/ADC/Gr.V/18/2024. When the same is viewed with the fact that the appellant had sought the copy of O-I-O vide their letter dated 09.05.2024 and the e-mail of the department dated 21.05.2024 specifically referred to the appellant’s letter dated 09.05.2024, it is clear that the Revenue authorities have made typographical mistake in the body of the e-mail. Therefore, going by the factual evidence produced before me, I find that the appellant has filed the appeal within the normal period of 2 months.
6. As the factual details and the documentary evidence have to be properly verified to come up to a conclusion as to whether the Adjudication order passed is proper or not, I remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to verify all the documentary evidence and pass a considered decision within 4 months from the date of receipt of this order.
7. The appeal stands disposed off thus.
