2012 (12) TMI 394

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d Shri B.L. Narasimhan, ld. Advocate appearing for the Respondent. 3. Referring to the relevant dates in Appeal No. 364/2006, the order impugned before us was passed by the Commissioner of Customs on 26th July 2004. As per the provisions of Section 129D, which were in force during the relevant time, the said order was examined by Chief Commissioner of Customs and was accepted to be correct on 20th August 2004. Thereafter, the matter was set at rest inasmuch as there were no directions of the Board to file an appeal against the said order of Commissioner of Customs. It is seen that Section 129D, prior to 13-5-05 provided jurisdiction to the Board, to call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which the Commissioner of Customs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e two Members of the Committee of Chief Commissioners, one accepting the order and the other preferring to file review, the review order had to be accepted and an Appeal could be filed there against. As this circular was issued on 6th Feb. 2006, difference in the two Members of the Committee occurred much prior to the said date of circular, no action was taken in between by the Board. After the issuance of the circular, the Committee passed a review order on 28th March 2006 to file appeal against the order of the Commissioner. 6. The facts in the other appeal of the Revenue are also more or less identical except that the impugned order in that matter was passed on 4th October 2004. 7. The question required to be addressed in the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eriod, any subsequent change in the law requiring review by Committee of Chief Commissioners cannot be applied retrospectively to the matters which have already attain finality and the same cannot be reopened. There is nothing in the amended provisions of Section 129D to reflect upon the fact that the same would apply retrospectively. Such procedure prescribed in the Section 129D would be applicable with effect from the date of amendment carried out in the said Section which is 13-5-2005. As such on the said issue itself, we are of the view that the subsequent reference of matter to the Committee of Chief Commissioners in terms of the amended provisions of law, itself was not in accordance with law. 8. We also further find that the Ch....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to be against all the basic principles of law and jurisprudence. 9. We at this stage also note that there was a difference between two Members of the Committee of Chief Commissioners. Of course there is Board's circular passed in the year 2006 laying down as to how in the absence of unanimous decision between two members, the recommendation of the Members preferring to file an appeal should be adopted. This circular of the board came under a scanner before the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. L.G. Balakrishnan & Bros. Ltd. - 2007 (6) S.T.R. 106 (Tri.-Chennai) = 2007 (211) E.L.T. 248 (Tri.-Chennai) and it was observed that the said circular encourages pro-revenue approach and opinion formation in the Review Committee in the event of ....