2023 (3) TMI 1216 - AT - Customs

Validity of review order - Period of limitation - date of receipt of order to be review - appeals dismissed on the grounds of limitation holding that the review order as required under Sub Section (2) of Section 129D of Customs Act, 1962 has been passed beyond the period of three months as envisaged in Sub Section (3) of Section 129D of Customs Act, 1962 - three months ought to have been computed from the date of receiving the Order-in-Original by the Reviewing Authority or not - HELD THAT - The strong inference that can be drawn is that there was no evidence available to establish as to the date on which the Order-in-Original was received by the Reviewing Cell and apparently there is a delay in passing the review order. The Commissioner (Appeals) has taken all effort to call for the files to check the date of receiving the order by the Reviewing Authority so as to avoid dismissing the appeals as time barred. His efforts did not see any result and had to dismiss the appeals as time barred. In all the three review orders, the date of receiving the Order-in-Original by the Reviewing Cell is not mentioned. When Sub Section (3) of Section 129 D prescribes a time frame of three months from the date of receiving the orders passed by adjudicating authority, it is necessary and would be convenient to mention it in the review order. It cannot be understood what prevented the Department from submitting before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the Order-in-Original was received by the Review Cell on the respective dates on which they have stated in the grounds of appeal. As there is no evidence to substantiate the contention of the Department that the Order-in-Original was received on such dates by the Review Cell and as there is no reason to dis-believe the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that there was no evidence as to the date on which Order-in-Original was received by the Reviewing Authority, the strong inference that can be drawn is that there is a delay in passing the review orders in these appeals. The contention of the Department that the orders were received by the Reviewing Authority only on 10.02.2010/16.04.2010/14.07.2010, cannot be accepted - there are no grounds to interfere with the observation and findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeals filed by the Department are dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The appeal involves the issue of the time limit for passing review orders under Sub Section (3) of Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962.

Details of the Judgment:

1. Issue of Time Limit for Passing Review Orders:
The Department filed appeals against the Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed them on grounds of limitation. The Department argued that the review orders were passed within the three-month period required by law if computed from the date of receiving the Order-in-Original by the Reviewing Authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals as time-barred due to lack of evidence regarding the date of receipt of the Order-in-Original by the Reviewing Authority. The Department contended that the original case files were not provided despite requests, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted the delay in passing review orders and emphasized the importance of mentioning the date of receiving the Order-in-Original in the review orders as per the Customs Act. The Tribunal observed that there was no evidence to support the Department's claim regarding the dates of receipt by the Reviewing Authority, and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings, dismissing the Department's appeals.

2. Lack of Evidence and Delay in Passing Review Orders:
The Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted the absence of evidence regarding the date of receiving the Order-in-Original by the Reviewing Authority, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. Despite requests for original case files, the Department failed to provide evidence to establish the dates of receipt. The Commissioner (Appeals) expressed dissatisfaction with the Department's handling of the appeals and emphasized the need for accurate information to make informed decisions. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings, stating that the lack of evidence and delay in passing review orders were evident in all three cases. The Tribunal rejected the Department's contentions regarding the dates of receipt by the Reviewing Authority, affirming the dismissal of the appeals.

3. Compliance with Customs Act Provisions:
The Tribunal referred to Sub Section (3) of Section 129D of the Customs Act, which mandates the passing of review orders within three months from the date of receiving the orders passed by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal noted the importance of adhering to the prescribed time frame and criticized the Department for failing to provide evidence to support their claims. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to dismiss the appeals based on the lack of evidence and the delay in passing review orders, thereby sustaining the impugned orders.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the Department's appeals, emphasizing the necessity of providing evidence and complying with the time limits set forth in the Customs Act. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 27.03.2023.