2020 (9) TMI 343 - AT - Customs

Review Order - Time Limitation - According to the Learned First Appellate Authority, the Review Order which was passed on 10.06.2019 was not within the above prescribed three months under Section 129D (3) of the Customs Act, 1962 and hence, rejected the Revenue s appeal - HELD THAT - It is found after going through the impugned order, that the Learned First Appellate Authority, though has observed the date of passing of the Order-in-Original as 23.01.2019, has not considered the date affixed by the signatory of the order. Moreover, the Learned First Appellate Authority has considered the date of dispatch as 12.02.2019 whereas as per Section 129D (3) ibid., what is relevant is the date of communication i.e., Review Order to be passed within a period of three months from the date of communication. Hence, if the date of communication is 11th March 2019, then the Review Order passed on 10.06.2019 is very much within the time-frame fixed by the statute. The Revenue is also one of the litigants before this court and that being so, it cannot sit in the driver s seat. First of all, the crucial aspect which is creating suspicion in the minds of all of us, is as to the date of communication (11.03.2019) when the order was signed on 04.02.2019, has not at all been explained nor is the Revenue disputing the contentions of the Learned Advocate for the appellant that the office of the Adjudicating Authority as also that of the Reviewing Authority are located in the same premises. There is also no further explanation as to the date of dispatch/communication that has taken about a month when undisputedly, both the authorities are in the same building premises. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Time-barred appeal filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal.
2. Delay in communication and review order timeline under Section 129D (3) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Lack of justification for delayed dispatch and communication.
4. Dispute over the date of communication and explanation by the Revenue.
5. Location of Adjudicating Authority and Reviewing Authority in the same premises.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal, challenging the finding of the Learned First Appellate Authority that the Revenue's appeal was time-barred due to the Review Order not being passed within three months as required under Section 129D (3) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The Order-in-Original was passed on 23.01.2019, but the Review Order was signed on 04.02.2019 and dispatched on 12.02.2019. The Review Order was received by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs on 11.03.2019. The timeline of communication and review order issuance was crucial in determining the timeliness of the appeal.

3. The delay in dispatch and communication was not adequately justified by the Revenue. The Advocate for the appellant argued that since both the Adjudicating Authority and the Reviewing Authority were located in the same premises, the delay was unjustifiable without supporting evidence such as movement registers.

4. The Judge noted discrepancies in the dates considered by the First Appellate Authority and emphasized that the relevant date for review order timeline under Section 129D (3) was the date of communication, which in this case was 11.03.2019. The lack of explanation by the Revenue regarding the delay raised suspicions.

5. The Judge highlighted the proximity of the Adjudicating Authority and the Reviewing Authority's offices in the same premises, questioning the delay in communication and dispatch. The Judge rejected the Revenue's explanation and found no merit in their contentions, ultimately dismissing their appeal and disposing of the cross objection filed by the assessee.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues surrounding the time-barred appeal, delay in communication, lack of justification for delays, and the proximity of the authorities' offices, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.