9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owever, the Commissioner (Appeals) instead of dismissing the appeals on limitation has given a further chance to the department to resubmit the appeals after obtaining the details with regard to the date of receipt of order by the reviewing authority. From the discussions made by the Commissioner (Appeals), it is explicit that the department has not been able to furnish any details as to the date of receipt of order by the reviewing authority. This Tribunal had also granted several adjournments to the department to obtain these details - ld. AR has not been able to place any such details with regard to the date of receipt of the order by the reviewing authority. There are no hesitation to conclude that the review order passed by the department is beyond the time-limit prescribed under sub-section (3) of section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962 and therefore the appeals filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) are time-barred. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Customs Appeal No.40496 of 2013 with C/40498/2013, C/40500- 40502/2013, C/40504- 40513/2013, C/40515- 40518/2013, C/40520- 40522/2013, C/40524- 40526/2013, C/40528- 40535/2013 - Final Order Nos. 40082-40114/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned AR and perused records. 5. At the outset, it is necessary to reproduce the Table in para 3 of the impugned order which would throw light as to the number of days of delay in filing the appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) by the department. The said Table reads as under:- Respondent OIO No. OIO Date / Issued Date Date of review order Delay in days Ramachandra Art Silk Yarn Trading 10068/2009 10.11.2009 24.2.2010 15 Mirc Electronics Ltd 10000/2009 30.10.2009/ 11.11.2009 11.3.2020 31 Shri Ram Impex India Pvt. Ltd. 9789/2009 08.10.2009/ 14.10.2009 22.2.2010 39 Tarajyot Polymers 10203/2009 3.12.2009 12.3.2010 10 Sha Abhaychand Banaji 10121/2009 25.11.2009 12.3.2010 16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16.7.2010 16 Ambica Agencies 11830/2010 19.04.2010/ 20.04.2010 29.7.2010 10 S.Ganesh Nagendra Co. 11732/2010 29.03.2010/ 13.04.2010 4.8.2010 23 Caterpillar India P Ltd 11860/2010 22.03.2010/ 22.04.2010 10.8.2010 20 Venus Welds 11950/2010 24.03.2010/ 03.05.2010 23.8.2010 21 Million Papier P Ltd. 12012/2010 29.01.2010/ 10.05/2010 25.8.2010 16 Gomraj Sons 12589/2010 06/08.2010/ 10/08/2010 15.11.2010 6 Shri Ram Impex India Pvt. Ltd. 12825/2010 30.08.2010/ 07.09/2010 13.12.2010 7 Trendz Paper Stationers (India) P 13236/2010 30.09.2010/ 21.10.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09 /04/2010 6. From the above Table, it can be seen that there is much delay in passing the review order. As per sub-section (3) of section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962, review order has to be passed within three months from the date of receipt or the communication of the order passed by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) has granted several chances to the department to furnish details with regard to the date of receipt of the order passed by the adjudicating authority. In fact, the date of order of adjudicating authority itself is not furnished in many orders. The department has failed to comply with the directions passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and thereupon he had no other way but to dispose of the appeals on the ground of limitation. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) instead of dismissing the appeals on limitation has given a further chance to the department to resubmit the appeals after obtaining the details with regard to the date of receipt of order by the reviewing authority. The said discussion is as under:- 4. On scrutiny of the orders in original by LAA and the subsequent review orders by the jurisdictiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h action by the reviewing authorities would have helped me to take up proper and just decision on merits instead of stumbling on the limitation aspect. Many of the respondents have promptly pointed out this feel, I am totally let down by the department in these appeals before the respondents. Hope in future the department will take appropriate measures to avoid such a situation where the respondents cannot raise a finger and fault the department. The only solace I find in these department appeals are that the original authority had filed the appeals in time (within one month) from the date of review orders. 7. From the discussions made by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the above paragraphs, it is explicit that the department has not been able to furnish any details as to the date of receipt of order by the reviewing authority. This Tribunal had also granted several adjournments to the department to obtain these details. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, ld. AR has not been able to place any such details with regard to the date of receipt of the order by the reviewing authority. On such score, I have no hesitation to conclude that the review order passed by the departm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
