9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imitation X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereas one Chief Commissioner accepted the order, and referred the matter to Member L&T, the other Chief Commissioner ordered for review. 5. It is seen that subsequently a Board's circular was issued, being Circular No. 825/2/06-CX., dated 6-2-2006 laying down the procedure to be followed in such a situation i.e. on account of difference of opinion between two Chief Commissioners constituting the Committee. As per the said procedure, whenever there is a difference between the two Members of the Committee of Chief Commissioners, one accepting the order and the other preferring to file review, the review order had to be accepted and an Appeal could be filed there against. As this circular was issued on 6th Feb. 2006, difference in the tw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut not beyond the period of one year from the date of passing of the order by Commissioner. The Chief Commissioner having accepted the order on 29th August 2004 and having intimated the above acceptance to the Board and the Board having not passed any order for review, it can be safely concluded that the matter had attained finality. As such, we are of the firm view that once the matter attained finality in terms of the provisions of law which were prevalent during the relevant period, any subsequent change in the law requiring review by Committee of Chief Commissioners cannot be applied retrospectively to the matters which have already attain finality and the same cannot be reopened. There is nothing in the amended provisions of Section 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order having been accepted by the department, subsequent review of the same by a Committee (that too with divided opinion) was neither justified nor warranted. Once a conscious decision is taken on the legality or otherwise of an order passed by the adjudicating authority, whether such decision is right or wrong, the subsequent overruling of the same in exercise of the jurisdiction which stand conferred subsequently and which was not available in the relevant time can be said to be against all the basic principles of law and jurisprudence. 9. We at this stage also note that there was a difference between two Members of the Committee of Chief Commissioners. Of course there is Board's circular passed in the year 2006 laying down as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t two years from the date of passing of the order. In the absence of any provisions relating to the condonation of delay in the said passing of the review order, in terms of Section 129D(3), we are of the view that such delay cannot be condoned. This was the ratio of the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of C.C.E. v. Azo Dye Chem - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 201 (Tri.-LB). The Larger Bench observed that right of appeal or right to file cross appeal is to be conferred by statute. The Larger Bench observed that in terms of the provisions of Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Tribunal has no powers to condone the delay caused in filing the appeal beyond the period of three months allowed by the provisions of the said Section 35 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
