2013 (7) TMI 79 - AT - Customs

Revenue appeal - delay in clearance from committee of clearance - condonation of delay - Held that - it is clear that the order of Committee of Chief Commissioners was passed after expiry of period of three months from the date of communication. There is no question of condoning by the Tribunal of the delay in exercise of the power by the Committee under Section 129D(1), as any order issued by the Committee after expiry of limitation period prescribed in Section 129D(3), is invalid and ineffective. Though in para 22 of Larger Bench judgment of Tribunal in case of C.C.E., Raipur v. Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. 2010 (8) TMI 50 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI , it is mentioned that in C.C.E. v. M.M. Rubber Co. (1991 (9) TMI 71 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), the issue which arose for consideration was as to what was the relevant date for the purpose of counting the period of one year provided under Section 35E(3) of Central Excise Act, 1944, from para 18 of the Apex Court s judgment in case of C.C.E. v. M.M. Rubber Co. (1991 (9) TMI 71 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), quoted above, it is clear that the Apex Court while deciding the main question, has also held in clear terms that the limitation period prescribed under Section 35E(3) should be given its literal meaning and order passed beyond the limitation period prescribed is invalid and ineffective. - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal maintainability due to delay in review order under Section 129D(1) of Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The case involved the respondent exporting rice declared as Basmati but found to be of inferior quality. The Commissioner ordered confiscation with an option for redemption and imposed a penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Committee of Chief Commissioners directed the Commissioner to file an appeal due to perceived low fines. However, a corrigendum was issued as the review order incorrectly cited the Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondent filed a cross objection against the appeal.

The Senior Departmental Representative argued that the Tribunal could condone the delay in issuing the review order under Section 129D(1) based on a Tribunal's power in a similar case under the Central Excise Act. The Counsel for the respondent contended that the review action was beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 129D(3) of the Customs Act, rendering the appeal not maintainable.

The Tribunal noted that the review order was issued after the three-month limitation period from the date of communication of the original order, as per Section 129D(3) of the Customs Act. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal emphasized that orders issued beyond the prescribed period are invalid. The Tribunal clarified that the provisions of Section 35E of the Central Excise Act are similar to Section 129D of the Customs Act. Therefore, any order issued after the limitation period is ineffective, and the Tribunal cannot condone such delays. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, cross objection, and miscellaneous applications.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found the appeal filed by the Revenue not maintainable due to the review order being issued after the prescribed limitation period under Section 129D(3) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and upheld the invalidity of orders issued beyond the specified period.