9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Original for computing the period of limitation. In the present case, in para 5 6 of the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed in detail that even after repeated requests the Department had not provided the details of the date on which the Order-in-Original was received by the reviewing authority. In similar matter, in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORTS) , CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. NAGAPPA EXPORTS, M/S. AMARA RAJA BATTERIES LTD. AND M/S. NORITSU KOKI CO. LTD. [ 2023 (3) TMI 1216 - CESTAT CHENNAI] the Tribunal had considered such appeal and dismissed holding that 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) for computing the period of limitation of three months whereas, the Commissioner (Appeals) computed the limitation from the date of passing the Order-in-Original. He prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 3. The learned counsel Shri Rohan appearing for the respondent submitted that even on merits the appeal does not survive for the reason that against the order passed by the original authority sanctioning the refund, the Department had issued Show Cause Notice proposing to recover the erroneously granted refund. The appellant then filed an application before the Settlement Commission for settling the issue of payment of the differential duty of SAD along with interest. The Settlement Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bstantiate 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. As discussed we cannot accept the contention of the Department that the orders were received by the Reviewing Authority only on 10.02.2010/16.04.2010/14.07.2010. We find no grounds to interfere with the observation and findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. The Department has not been able to establish why th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
