9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 828 - AT - CustomsCondonation of delay of 8 days in passing the review order - HELD THAT - It is seen that even after much efforts, the Commissioner (Appeals) could not get details from the department as to the date of receipt of the Order in Original by the Review Cell. If the Department had knowledge about the date of receipt of the Order in Original by the Review Cell as being 11.3.2010, they ought to have furnished such evidence before the Commissioner (Appeals) itself. The Tribunal in similar matters in 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 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 Review Cell and apparently there was a delay in passing the review order. Thus, the appeal filed by the department is without merits - impugned order is sustained - appeal is dismissed.
Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the issue of delay in passing the review order by the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 129D(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. Details of the Judgment: Issue of Delay in Passing Review Order: The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the department's appeal as time-barred due to a delay in passing the review order. The appellant argued that the Order in Original was received by the Review Cell on 11.3.2010, not on 4.3.2010 as stated, and requested a remand for a decision on merits. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the delay claimed by the department was unbelievable, citing instances of quick communication within the same building. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) could not obtain details from the department regarding the date of receipt of the Order in Original by the Review Cell, and emphasized the need for evidence to establish the timeline accurately. The Tribunal referred to similar matters where evidence regarding the receipt of orders by the Review Cell was lacking, leading to dismissals on grounds of being time-barred. It highlighted the necessity for transparency and prompt responses in legal proceedings. The Tribunal cautioned against interference in the administration of justice and emphasized the serious consequences of filing false evidence in judicial proceedings. It directed the Registry to inform the Principal Chief Commissioner to ensure appeals are filed diligently and to include the date of receiving the Order-in-Original in the Review Order itself. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, dismissing the department's appeals due to the lack of merit. In conclusion, the judgment addresses the issue of delay in passing the review order, emphasizing the importance of providing accurate evidence and conducting legal proceedings with integrity. The Tribunal's decision underscores the need for transparency, diligence, and adherence to legal procedures in such matters.
|
