9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 591 - AT - CustomsCondonation of delay of 947 days - revenue appeal - Held that - The Revenue seeking to condone the delay of 947 days for the reasons of two Review Committee orders dt. 21.12.2012 and 24.4.2015 is not justified and we are of the considered view that Section 129A (2) or Section 129D of Customs Act does not empower the Committee of Commissioners to review their own order again and take different view. There is also a time limit to review any order and the section does not empower the Committee to review the order beyond the specified period. In view of the above facts, the reason for condoning the delay of 947 days is devoid of merit. Accordingly, MA (COD) is rejected. Consequently, the Revenue Appeal along with Miscellaneous Application for stay of the impugned order is also rejected. We bring it to the notice of the CBEC Board and Chief Commissioner of Customs, Chennai to take necessary steps on the powers of Committee to review the orders under Section 129D and 129A (2) of Customs Act and issue necessary guidelines to the field formations as deem fit. Registry is directed to forward the copy of this order to Chairman, CBEC, New Delhi and Chief Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. Decided against the revenue.
Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay, review of orders by Committee of Commissioners, powers of Committee under Customs Act. Analysis: The judgment dealt with a case where the Revenue filed a COD application for condoning a delay of 947 days in filing an appeal along with a MISC application for stay of the impugned order. The delay was attributed to the fact that the impugned order was initially accepted by the Committee of Commissioners based on the National Litigation Policy, which considered the duty amount involved to be below the threshold for appeal. However, it was later revealed that there was no quantified demand in the order, only a reclassification of goods. The Committee of Commissioners reviewed the order on two occasions, but the subsequent review order did not acknowledge the earlier review, leading to confusion. The Tribunal observed that the Committee's actions were not justified under the Customs Act, as there are limits to reviewing orders and changing views beyond a specified period. Therefore, the reason for condoning the delay was deemed to be without merit, and the COD application was rejected, resulting in the rejection of the Revenue's appeal and the Miscellaneous Application for stay. The Tribunal highlighted the issue to the CBEC [Board] and Chief Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, urging them to take necessary steps regarding the powers of the Committee to review orders under Sections 129D and 129A (2) of the Customs Act. They directed the Registry to send a copy of the order to the Chairman, CBEC, New Delhi, and the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Chennai for further action. This aspect of the judgment underscores the broader implications of the case on the interpretation and application of relevant provisions of the Customs Act, signaling the need for clarity and guidelines in similar situations to avoid confusion and ensure procedural adherence.
|
