2007 (5) TMI 527 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Time-barred appeal, nature of OIO as speaking order, applicability of citations

In this case, the appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of being time-barred, as it was filed after the prescribed period of limitation under Section 129A of the Customs Act. The appellants' refund application had been rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, who adjusted the refund amount with time-barred dues to the Government. The main issue was whether the OIO could be considered a speaking order and hence appealable. The appellants argued that the OIO should not be treated as an order but as a correspondence, relying on rulings from the Bombay High Court and the Calcutta Bench. On the other hand, the JDR contended that the OIO was indeed an order under the law, as it clearly rejected the refund claim and adjusted the amounts payable by the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the nature of the OIO as an order and dismissed the appeal on the grounds of being time-barred, noting that the citations provided by the appellants were not applicable to the present case.

The learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the OIO should be considered a speaking order and not an appealable order. They had requested the Assistant Commissioner to pass a speaking order, but were informed that the OIO dated 24-3-2004 was already an appealable order. The Counsel relied on the Bombay High Court ruling and the Calcutta Bench decision to support their argument that the OIO should be treated as a correspondence. However, the JDR emphasized that the OIO was a valid order under the law, as it clearly stated the rejection of the refund claim and the adjustment of amounts payable by the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) agreed with the JDR's interpretation, stating that the OIO was indeed an order and not a correspondence. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appeal was rightly dismissed as time-barred, as it was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation under Section 129A of the Customs Act.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the OIO as an order and to dismiss the appeal on the grounds of being time-barred. The Tribunal noted that the citations provided by the appellants were not applicable to the present case, as the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly determined the nature of the OIO. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellants' argument and affirmed the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to dismiss the appeal.