2015 (2) TMI 462 - AT - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - Refund claim of SAD in terms of Notification 102/2007-Cus dated 14/07/2007 - Held that - four appeals were dismissed on the ground that there is no power vested to the Commissioner (Appeals) to review his own order considering that the Revenue has filed four separate appeals against Orders-in-Original and not against order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue has followed the direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) and filed four appeals. It clearly appears from the impugned order that four appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) were filed against Orders-in-Original only and not against the Commissioner (Appeals) order. Therefore the Commissioner (Appeals) gravely erred in giving the said findings which is against the fact appearing on record. As per the submission of the respondent I am of the view that monetary limit will apply only in case the order has passed on merit. In the present case the impugned order was not passed on merit. Therefore the appeals are maintainable. As regard time bar, the Revenue in the first round had filed consolidated appeal against four Orders-in-Original, all the four orders-in-original were in challenged. It is only technical requirement to file four numbers of appeals. Therefore in these facts and circumstances, it can not be said that there is delay in filing in the appeal. - Matter remanded back - Appeal disposed of.

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal rejection by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
2. Filing of four separate appeals against Orders-in-Original
3. Maintainability of appeals based on monetary limit and time bar

Issue 1: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal rejection by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
The appeals were directed against Order-in-Appeal No. YBD(44-47)THI/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), which rejected the four appeals filed by the Revenue. The Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the common appeal filed by the Revenue against the four refund claims, stating that separate appeals should have been filed against each Order-in-Original. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as infructuous since separate appeals were already pending before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Issue 2: Filing of four separate appeals against Orders-in-Original
The Revenue initially filed a common appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against four separate Orders-in-Original dated 30/12/2010. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the common appeal and directed the Revenue to file four separate appeals against each Order-in-Original. In compliance, the Revenue filed four separate appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed these four appeals as not maintainable, stating that there was no power to review his own order and that the appeals were filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) himself, which was incorrect.

Issue 3: Maintainability of appeals based on monetary limit and time bar
The respondent argued that the total refund amount involved was below the monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal as per Board instructions. Additionally, the respondent claimed that the appeals were time-barred as they were filed after the stipulated 90-day limit before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal held that the monetary limit would apply only if the order was passed on merit, which was not the case here. Regarding the time bar, the Tribunal found that since the Revenue had initially filed a consolidated appeal against all four Orders-in-Original, there was no delay in filing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding all four appeals on merit, emphasizing that both parties should have sufficient opportunity for submissions and personal hearings.

← Previous Next →