9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 828X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (EXPORTS) , CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. VCR TIMBER ENTERPRISES AND M/S. MEHNDIPUR BALAJI IMPEX (P) LTD. [ 2023 (3) TMI 1082 - CESTAT CHENNAI] held that 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. Thus, the appeal filed by the department is without merits - impugned order is sustained - appeal is dismissed. - MS. SULEKHA BEEVI C.S., MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI M. AJIT KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Smt. O.M. Reena, ADC (AR) for the Appellant Ms. Pallavi Ganesh, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts of the case are that the above app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vable and cannot be accepted. Both these offices are stationed in the very same building and it could be served within the next day itself. To substantiate her claim, the learned counsel produced a copy of the review order passed by the Review cell on 10.6.2010 and stated that the same has been received by the adjudicating authority for filing appeal before the Tribunal on the next day itself i.e. 11.6.2010. If the order passed by the Review Cell could be handed over or received by the adjudicating authority stationed in the very same building on the next day itself, the contention of the department that the Order in Original was received by the Review Cell only on 11.3.2010 cannot be accepted. The discussions made by the Commissioner (Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced based on the facts and figures available as such from the appeal papers filed before me by the department. In order to find out whether actually any delay exist in passing the review order, the original case files were called for from the department yielded no result. The repeated request in calling for the case files proved futile. It is seen that even after much efforts, the Commissioner (Appeals) could not get details from the department as to the date of receipt of the Order in Original by the Review Cell. If the Department had knowledge about the date of receipt of the Order in Original by the Review Cell as being 11.3.2010, they ought to have furnished such evidence before the Commissioner (Appeals) itself. 6. The Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (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. 14. We also observe that the strongly worded anguish expressed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order should have been taken very seriously by the Learned Committee of Chief Commissioners. They should have enquired into the reasons why the department did not respond with promptness to repeated requests by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) calling for the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 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) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
