9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Questions of Law: "(i) Whether the order of the Tribunal in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant as barred by limitation is justified and is correct under the statutory provisions of Customs Act, 1962. (ii) Whether the order of the Tribunal was correct in holding that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeals filed by the appellant was barred by limitation ignoring the statutory provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. (iii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in declining to exercise the statutory power vested under Section 129D(4) r/w Section 123A of the Customs Act, 1962 resulted in miscarriage of justice. (iv) Whether the Tribunal was correct in not applying the ration laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as time barred and the order reads as follows: "From the above, it is clear that the review orders should be passed within three months from the date of communication of the O-In-O and the appeal under Section 129D should be made within a further period one month from the date of communication of the review order. It is seen from table above that, though in many cases the review order itself was seemed to be passed after the stipulated period of three months from the date of communication of the O-In-O. Since, the date of dispatch of the impugned order could not be ascertained with authenticity the delay in such cases were not considered. However, the mandatory requirement of filing an appeal within 1 month was also not followed as it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the appeals have been preferred within the time limit prescribed under the Act. The Commissioner has found that this has not been done. This aspect has been reconsidered by the Tribunal and the appeals filed by the Revenue were rejected. The Tribunal also pointed out that the Commissioner (Appeals) has flagged the number of days of noncondonable delay in each of the cases which has not been disputed by the Department. Therefore, the Tribunal held that they are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Before us the Department cannot seek for a roving enquiry or for re-adjudication of facts which has been done by the Tribunal. 9. Therefore, we are of the considered view, that the order passed by the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
