9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.12.2002. Revenue explains its stand relying on an unsworn affidavit received from Board – Held that: - Right to appeal is a statutory right which is exercised in accordance with law and within the time prescribed by it to put an end to the litigation - Time of 1 (one) year was prescribed to review order - merely explaining the practice followed by Board in decision making, Revenue is not absolved of its obligation to adhere to the limitation prescribed by law - entire contention of Revenue based on Board's unsworn affidavit averring non-availability of review record does not grant immunity from bar of limitation - in absence of any cogent evidence establishing date of review was on 31.12.02 Revenue's appeal is dismissed. - E/150/2003 - 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .1/2002 dated 1.1.2002. This is evident from communication of unsigned review order of the Board issued by a Superintendent on 17.3.2003 and Revenue came in appeal before Tribunal on 31.3.2003. Had the review been done on 31.12.2002, Revenue would have filed appeal forthwith without delay of 3 months from that date. It was categorically submitted by the respondent that when the OIO was passed on 1.1.2002, the last date for review was 31.12.2002. Hence, belated appeal of Revenue against nonest review order made that liable to be dismissed. 4. It was submitted by learned departmental representative on behalf of Revenue that according to the law prevailing at the relevant point of time, Board had power to review legality and propriety of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15.11.2002 15.11.02 10.12.01 10.12.2002 2 199/278/02-JC (BMB) 09.12.2002 09.12.02 05.02.03 14.03.2003 3 199/160/02-JC (BMB) 20.11.2002 20.11.02 09.12.02 12.12.2002 4 199/228/02-JC (BMB) 10.12.2002 10.12.02 13.12.02 15.01.2003 5 199/320/02-JC (BMB) 19.12.2002 19.12.02 26.12.02 16.03.2003 6 199/325/02-JC (BMB) 09.12.2002 09.12.02 09.12.02 13.01.2003 In view of the above, it was submitted by learned D. R. that Tribunal may take a lenient view to admit the appeal of Revenue. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e decision or order as may be specified by the Board in its order. (3) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) after the expiry of one year from the date of the decision or order of the adjudicating authority. (4) Where in pursuance of an order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) the adjudicating authority or the authorised officer makes an application to the Appellate Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals) within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) to the adjudicating authority, such application shall be heard by the Appellate Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals), as the case may be, as if such application were an appeal made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l welfare that a period be put to litigation). Accordingly, unreasonable and unexplained delay makes the remedy liable to be fatal. 11. Merely explaining the practice followed by Board in decision making, Revenue is not absolved of its obligation to adhere to the limitation prescribed by law. Public authorities are expected to protect interest of State being vigilant. While on one hand review record could not be produced by Revenue to appreciate its contentions, on the other, belated communication of the unsigned review order on 17.3.03 proves that no review was done on 31.12.2002. This is followed by laxity of Revenue seeking appeal remedy on 31.3.2003. Such casual approach of Revenue shows its scanty regard to law. Had there been a deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
