9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty in terms of Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14/09/2007. After due process of law, the original authority sanctioned the refund claim. Against such order, the Department had filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). However it was observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that though order was passed by the refund sanctioning authority on 16.06.2010 and despatched on 28.06.2010, the Review Authority has passed Review Order only on 12.10.2020 which is beyond the period of three months as required under Sub Section (3) of Section 129D of Customs Act, 1962. The appeal was thus dismissed as time barred without going to the merits of the case. 3. The learned AR Shri R. Rajaraman appeared for the Department and reiterated the groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ords and written submissions made by the Respondent. From the records, it is seen that though the order was signed on 16.6.2010 by the LAA, the same was prepared and dispatched on 28.6.2010, but the review order was passed on 12.10.2010. Hence, there was a delay of 15 days over and above the stipulated time of 3 months. Before going into the merits of the case it is seen that the procedures laid down under Section 129 D ibid was not followed. According to 129D(3) reads as follows:: "[(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.]" 5. From the appeal filed before me, I find t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 27.03.2023, in which it was observed as under: "11. We do not understand what prevented the Department from submitting before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the Order-in-Original was received by the Review Cell on the respective dates on which they have stated in the grounds of appeal. As there is no evidence to substantiate the contention of the Department that the Order-in-Original was received on such dates by the Review Cell and as there is no reason to dis-believe the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that there was no evidence as to the date on which Order-in-Original was received by the Reviewing Authority, the strong inference that can be drawn is that there is a delay in passing the review orders in these appeals. 12. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
