2023 (5) TMI 1167 - AT - Customs

Maintainability of revenue s appeal - time limitation - Refund of 4% additional duty of customs paid - review order as required under Sub Section (2) of Section 129D of Customs Act, 1962 has been passed by the Reviewing Authority beyond the period of three months as envisaged under Sub Section (3) of Section 129D of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - Similar appeals had come up for hearing before the Tribunal wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed appeals filed by Department on the ground of being time barred. In those cases also it was urged by the Department that the seal impressed on the Order-in-Original by the Reviewing Cell would establish that the order was received by the Reviewing Authority on a much later date. The Tribunal after considering the submissions made by the learned AR and perusing the records observed that there was no reason to disbelieve, the observation made by the Commissioner (Appeals) that there was no evidence available before him as to the date on which the Reviewing Authority received the order - Reliance can be placed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORTS) , CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. VCR TIMBER ENTERPRISES AND M/S. MEHNDIPUR BALAJI IMPEX (P) LTD. 2023 (3) TMI 1082 - CESTAT CHENNAI where it was held that It is opined that the seal seen affixed on the photo copy of the Orders-in-Original found in the annexure to the appeal filed by the department, purporting to show the date of receipt of the order in the review section, to be suspect - 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 Review Cell and apparently there was a delay in passing the review order. In some appeals there is no seal affixed on the Order-in-Original but it is merely stated in the grounds of appeal that the order was received by the Reviewing Authority on a much later date. The Tribunal in a similar matter in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORTS) , CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. NAGAPPA EXPORTS, M/S. AMARA RAJA BATTERIES LTD. AND M/S. NORITSU KOKI CO. LTD. 2023 (3) TMI 1216 - CESTAT CHENNAI has held that 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. There are no ground to take a different view. The impugned orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) are sustained - appeal of Revenue dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issue in these appeals is the time bar for filing appeals against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the Department's appeals as time barred.

Refund Claim and Time Bar:
The respondents filed refund claims for 4% additional duty of customs paid on imported goods. The refund sanctioning authority approved the claims. However, the Department's appeals were dismissed as time barred by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to a delay in passing the review order as per Customs Act, 1962.

Arguments and Observations:
The Department argued that the review order was delayed due to the date of receipt by the Reviewing Authority not being considered for computing the three-month period. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted discrepancies in the review process and emphasized the importance of timely actions in such matters.

Judicial Findings:
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, stating that there was no evidence presented regarding the date of receipt by the Reviewing Authority. The Tribunal cautioned against filing forged documents and interference in the administration of justice, citing legal provisions for punishment in case of false evidence.

Directive for Future Cases:
The Tribunal directed the Principal Chief Commissioner to ensure appeals are filed diligently, with instructions to include the date of receiving the Order-in-Original by the review cell in the Review Order. This directive aimed to prevent delays and deceptive practices in similar cases.

Decision and Dismissal:
Based on the findings and lack of substantial evidence provided by the Department, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s orders, dismissing the Department's appeals. The judgment was pronounced on 26.05.2023, emphasizing the importance of adherence to legal procedures and timeliness in customs matters.