2013 (9) TMI 586 - AT - Customs

Period of limitation validity of review order Held that - The findings of the lower appellate authority that the review had been done beyond the period of limitation prescribed in law was patently wrong - the argument of the revenue that they received the order on the date of the order and that date was relevant was not acceptable - the date of receipt in the review section is the relevant date - the date of receipt of the order in the concerned section and the review had been done within a period of three months order was set aside appeal was allowed by way of remand decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Review of order by Commissioner within stipulated time period.
2. Interpretation of relevant date for receipt of order.
3. Legality of the review process.
4. Applicability of time limitation for review under Section 129D(2).
5. Decision on the appeal filed by Revenue.

Analysis:
1. The appeal pertains to the review of an order-in-original by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) within the prescribed time frame. The Commissioner reviewed the order of the Deputy Commissioner and subsequently filed an appeal within 30 days as required by law. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) contended that the review should have been completed within three months from the date of the original order, which was not the case in this instance, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the lower appellate authority.

2. The Additional Commissioner argued that the review was conducted within the stipulated time period based on the date of receipt of the order by the review section, as per Section 129D(2). The contention was supported by evidence from the register maintained in the review section, confirming that the order was received on 20/05/2009 and the review was completed on 18/08/2009. This argument emphasized the importance of the date of receipt in the review section as the relevant date for initiating the review process.

3. The respondent's counsel, however, argued that the date of receipt by the Commissioner personally should be considered as the relevant date for commencing the review. This argument was based on the presumption that the Commissioner directly receives the orders, contrary to the actual process where the concerned section receives and presents the papers to the Commissioner. The Tribunal rejected this argument, emphasizing that the date of receipt in the review section is pivotal for determining the timeliness of the review process.

4. Considering the provisions of Section 129D(2) and the timeline for review set therein, the Tribunal concluded that the review was conducted within the prescribed three-month period from the date of receipt in the review section. The Tribunal highlighted that the Commissioner's direct receipt of orders is not the norm, and therefore, the date of receipt in the concerned section is the valid reference point for compliance with the statutory time limit for review.

5. In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal, setting aside the lower appellate authority's decision. The matter was remanded back to the lower authority for reconsideration on merits and to pass an order in accordance with the law. Additionally, a direction was issued for the re-adjudication of the special valuation matter by the Commissioner (Appeals) within three months from the date of the Tribunal's order, ensuring compliance with legal procedures and timelines.

← Previous Next →