9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 193 - AT - CustomsReview order - dismissal of appeal on account of time bar - Held that - I find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal filed by the department as time-barred without going into the merits of the case. The appeal is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue on merits without going into the aspect of limitation. The respondents are at liberty to agitate the matter on the issue of unjust enrichment and produce all relevant documents and defend their case. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) shall afford a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondent before deciding the issue on merits. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand to Commissioner (Appeals).
Issues:
1. Appeal rejection as time-barred without considering merits. 2. Review order timeline compliance. 3. Justification for refund claim. 4. Dispute resolution and undue harassment. Issue 1: Appeal Rejection as Time-barred The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the department's appeal as time-barred without delving into the case's merits. The department argued that the reviewing authority received the OIO on 3.5.2010 and the review order was passed on 28.7.2010, within the stipulated three-month period. The department contended that the observation of delay by the Commissioner (Appeals) was incorrect. The department also challenged the refund of 4% Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) sanctioned by the adjudicating authority, citing discrepancies in goods manufactured and sold, and invoking the principle of unjust enrichment for the respondent's refund claims. Issue 2: Review Order Timeline Compliance The department's representative emphasized that the review order was passed within the prescribed three-month period, disputing the Commissioner (Appeals)'s assertion of a six-day delay. The argument centered on the timely receipt of the OIO by the reviewing authority and the subsequent review order, maintaining compliance with the statutory timeline. The department sought to set aside both the Order-in-Appeal and OIO based on these grounds. Issue 3: Justification for Refund Claim The respondent's advocate defended the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refunds)'s decision to sanction the refund claim, asserting its correctness and absence of any flaws. The advocate highlighted that the dispute, characterized as an old matter, was exacerbated by the department, causing unwarranted distress to the respondent. The respondent urged for the dismissal of the department's appeal to resolve the ongoing dispute and alleviate undue harassment. Issue 4: Dispute Resolution and Undue Harassment After hearing both parties, the Judicial Member found that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of being time-barred, without addressing the case's merits. The appeal was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a thorough examination of the issue on its merits, disregarding the limitation aspect. The Judicial Member granted the respondents the opportunity to present relevant documents and defend their case concerning unjust enrichment. The directive was for the Commissioner (Appeals) to provide a fair and reasonable hearing to the respondent before making a decision on the merits, thereby allowing the appeal through remand. The Cross objection filed by the respondent was also disposed of during the proceedings.
|
