2017 (3) TMI 708 - AT - Central Excise

Validity of review order - time limitation - whether the order of review by the Committee was within time or not? - Held that - in the earlier round of litigation, the dates of communication of the adjudication order was written as 24.3.2008, 27.09.2007, 07.03.2008, 07.03.2008, 07.03.2008 and 27.05.2008. Later on in the impugned proceedings the date of receipt has been changed which is not permissible as in the earlier round of litigation, the Revenue itself admitted the date of communication of adjudication order as mentioned in the earlier round of litigation in EA-2 taken to be correct. If the said dates are taken to be correct, then all the review orders are beyond the time limit of three months - review order was not valid - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Review order timeline calculation based on the date of receipt of adjudication order.

Analysis:
The appellant filed appeals against an order stating that the review by the Committee was timely as it started from the receipt of the adjudication order. In a previous round of litigation, the Tribunal remanded the case to examine the limitation issue. The appellant argued that the Revenue changed its stance on the date of receipt of adjudication orders. The appellant contended that the date of communication of the adjudication order was altered in the remand proceedings deliberately. The Revenue argued that considering the date of communication of the adjudication order, the review orders were within the time limit.

Upon reviewing the records, it was found that in the earlier round of litigation, the dates of communication of the adjudication orders were different from the dates later claimed in the impugned proceedings. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the dates provided by the Revenue. The Tribunal held that if the original dates of communication were correct, then all review orders exceeded the three-month time limit. Consequently, the impugned orders were deemed unsustainable in the eyes of the law. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals with any consequential relief.

This judgment highlights the importance of accurately documenting and maintaining consistent dates in legal proceedings, especially concerning the timeline for review orders based on the receipt of adjudication orders. The Tribunal's decision emphasizes the need for adherence to procedural timelines and consistency in presenting factual information throughout legal proceedings to ensure the integrity and validity of decisions.