9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1082X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew orders passed are well within time as prescribed under Sub Section (3) of 129 D of Customs Act, 1962. From the Section as noticed above it can be seen that the period of three months has to be computed from the date of communication of the decision or order passed by the adjudicating authority. In both review order, the date of receiving the Order-in-Original by the Reviewing Cell is not mentioned. When Sub Section (3) of Section 129 D prescribes a time frame of three months from the date of receiving the order passed by adjudicating authority, it is necessary and would be convenient to mention it in the review order - What prevented the department from producing it before the Commissioner (Appeals) even after repeated request. How did the seal appear for the purpose of filing an appeal before the Tribunal. The Bench raised these doubts to the learned AR as to what is the reason that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not able to take notice of such seal if it was present on the order while considering the appeal. The learned AR was not able to reply. It is opined that the seal seen affixed on the photo copy of the Orders-in-Original found in the annexure to the appeal filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against this order of sanctioning the refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order impugned herein, observed that the review order as required under Sub Section (2) of Section 129 D of Customs Act, 1962 has been passed by the Reviewing Authority beyond the period of three months as envisaged in Sub Section (3) of Section 129 D of Act ibid, and dismissed the appeal as time barred. Aggrieved by such orders the Department is now before the Tribunal. 4. The learned AR Ms. G. Anandalakshmi appeared and argued on behalf of the Department. It is submitted by the learned AR that in appeal No.C/40762/2013 the Order-in-Original dated 26.02.2010 was received by the reviewing authority only on 11.03.2010. As per Sub Section (3) of Section 129 D, the review order has to be passed within three months from the date of communication of the order. The reviewing authority passed the review orders on 09.06.2010 and when computed from the date of receipt of order, the review order is passed well within three months. Instead of computing the period of three months from the date of receipt of the Order-in-Original by the reviewing authority, the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity or any officer of Customs subordinate to him] to apply to the [Commissioner (Appeals)] for the determination of such points arising out of the decision or order as may be specified by the [Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs] in his order. .... ..... ..... (3) Every order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), as the case may be, shall be made within a period of three months from the date of communication of the decision or order of the adjudicating authority . 8. In both these appeals it is argued that when the period of three months is computed from the date of receiving the Order-in-Original by the reviewing authority, the review orders passed are well within time as prescribed under Sub Section (3) of 129 D of Customs Act, 1962. From the Section as noticed above it can be seen that the period of three months has to be computed from the date of communication of the decision or order passed by the adjudicating authority. In both appeals the learned AR has argued that the seal affixed on the Order-in-Original would show the date on which the Order-in-Original was received by the Reviewing Authority and that Commissioner (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties would have helped me to take a proper and just decision on merits instead of stumbling on the limitation aspect. 10. The very same discussion in verbatim is made by the Commissioner (Appeals) in Para 6 and 7 of impugned order in appeal C/40762/2013. Being a repetition it is not worthwhile to reproduce it again. 11. On going through the discussions made by Commissioner (Appeals) in the above stated paragraphs, the strong inference that can be drawn is that there was no evidence available to establish as to the date on which the Order-in-Original was received by Reviewing Cell and apparently there is delay in passing the Review Order. The Commissioner (Appeals) has taken all effort to call for the files to check the date of receiving the order by the Reviewing Authority so as to avoid dismissing the appeals as time barred. His efforts did not see any result and had to dismiss the appeals as time barred. 12. We have perused the review order dated 09.06.2010 and 15.06.2010. Surprisingly, in both review order, the date of receiving the Order-in-Original by the Reviewing Cell is not mentioned. When Sub Section (3) of Section 129 D prescribes a time frame of three months f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reviewing authority, in spite of repeated requests. Revenues actions should be beyond suspicion. Hence the strong inference that can be drawn is that there was no evidence available to establish as to the date on which the order-in-original was received by the Review Cell and apparently there was a delay in passing the review order. 16. We would at this stage like to caution all parties concerned that any interference in the course of administration of justice is an offence punishable under law. If a forged or fabricated document is filed in court to get some relief the same amounts to interference with the administration of justice. Sub section (8) of section 129C of the Customs Act, 1962 reads as under: SECTION 129C. Procedure of Appellate Tribunal. (8) Any proceeding before the Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 and for the purpose of section 196 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and the Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). Section 193 of the India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
