9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the appeal is barred due to the review of the order beyond the prescribed period under Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962? 2. Whether the appeal is not maintainable as contended by the respondents? Analysis: 1. The first issue revolves around the review of the order beyond the prescribed period under the Customs Act, 1962. The Board originally had the authority to review an order within two years from the date of the decision. However, the period was reduced to one year with effect from a specific date. In this case, the review was conducted after the revised deadline. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision to emphasize that proceedings initiated under the provisions existing at the time of initiation should adhere to the applicable time limitations. Consequently, the review in this case was deemed barred under the law, rendering the appeal not maintainable. 2. The second issue pertains to the maintainability of the appeal based on the nature of the order passed by the Collector. The Tribunal scrutinized the order and concluded that it lacked the necessary application of mind by the Collector to be considered an Adjudication Order. Citing a relevant case, the Tribunal highlighted that for an order to be appealable under the Customs Act, it must involve a judicial determination after providing an opportunity for the party to explain accusations. In this case, the Collector's action was deemed more executive than judicial, as it did not fulfill the criteria for an Adjudication Order. Therefore, the appeal was deemed not maintainable and subsequently dismissed. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of timeliness in the review process and the nature of the order passed by the Collector. The Tribunal's analysis emphasized adherence to statutory timelines and the judicial requirements for an order to be appealable under the Customs Act, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
|
