9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (3) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the department was beyond the limitation prescribed under Sec. 129D(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. When the matter was called out for hearing Mr. Paithankar, purchase clerk of the respondents firm, appeared and submitted a letter dated 28-2-1990 enclosing therewith the copy of written representation filed before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) and submitting that there was no case for the department requiring the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) to be set aside. As a postscript, they have mentioned In case you have any further queries, kindly give a personal hearing at a suitable date . Reading the letter as a whole, it appears that they do not require to be heard in person on the point at issue in the appeal before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Sec. 129D(3) of the Act was two years . However, subsequent thereto, and before the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, could exercise his powers, under Sec. 129D(2), sub-section (3) was amended vide Finance Act, 1984, reducing the limitation prescribed for review, from two years to one year . As submitted by the learned JDR, therefore, the situation that arose was, that, when the order under appeal was taken up for review, the period of limitation available was two years which came to be curtailed to one year when the decision on review was taken. He also submitted that the amendment in sub-sec. (3) came at a stage, when the period of one year had already expired, after passing of the order under review, and as such, it wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order under Sec. 129D(2) was passed on 30-11-1984. From this, it is clear that when the occasion to exercise power arose, the time-limit prescribed was two years, which was reduced to one year, even after expiry of the period of one year. The Finance Act, 1984, neither provides any saving clause nor makes its operation with retrospective effect. 6. Right to review and file an appeal is a right invested in the concerned authority under a statute, and statutory right so invested cannot be divested by any subsequent enactment unless the subsequently enacted statute expressly provides for the same. In the instant case, right to file accrued to the department, on 6-8-1983, when the Assistant Collector sanctioned refund. Sec. 129D(2) has invest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s there also this very Finance Act, 1984 was being interpreted. 9. Under the circumstances, it is clear that the Collector of Customs (Appeals) was clearly in error in taking the view that the appeal was hit by the provision of limitation. The provisions applicable are the pre-amended provisions which prescribed the period of limitation as two years, and undisputedly, the present appeal is filed within the said stipulated period of two years. 10. The order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) therefore, cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. 11. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) has not considered the appeal on merits, and hence the same is ordered to be remanded to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) for disposal of the same o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
