2023 (4) TMI 452 - AT - Customs

Tribunal upholds dismissal of appeal due to delay in review order, emphasizes adherence to customs laws

The Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to dismiss the Department's appeal due to a delay in passing the review order within the ... Refund of SAD in terms of N/N.102/2007-Cus dated 14/09/2007 - Time Limitation - 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 - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the Order-in-Original it is seen hand written on the first page of the Order-in-Original that the date of receipt of the order by the Review Cell is 14.07.2010. The Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed in the impugned order that even after repeated requests the Department did not furnish the date on which the original order was received by the Reviewing Authority. The very same facts and issue came up for consideration before this Tribunal 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] where it was held that It cannot be understood 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. There are no ground to take a different view. The impugned order sustained - appeal of Revenue dismissed. Issues:The appeal filed by the Department against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation.Issue 1:The respondent filed a refund claim for refund of special additional duty. The original authority sanctioned the refund claim. The Department filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal as time-barred due to a delay in passing the review order beyond the stipulated time of three months as required under Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962.The Department argued that the review order was passed within time as the Reviewing Authority received the original order on 14.07.2010. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the Department did not provide evidence of the date on which the original order was received by the Reviewing Authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal due to the delay in passing the review order.Issue 2:Upon perusal of the Order-in-Original, it was found that the date of receipt of the order by the Review Cell was 14.07.2010. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the Department failed to furnish the date on which the original order was received by the Reviewing Authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized the importance of following the procedures laid down under Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962, and highlighted the delay in passing the review order.The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and observed that there was no evidence to substantiate the Department's contention regarding the date of receipt of the original orders by the Reviewing Authority. The Tribunal concluded that there was a delay in passing the review orders and dismissed the appeal filed by the Department.In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the impugned order and dismissed the appeal filed by the Department, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the prescribed timelines and procedures under the Customs Act, 1962.