TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 101
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and 1% HS Education Cess + 4% ACD against their declared classification under CTH 8434200 and claiming the benefit of Exemption Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006. Consequently differential duty of Rs.24,66,811/- was demanded from the Appellant. Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Appraising Group, 5A, Customs Hosue, Kolkata vide order dated 30.07.2008 dropped the proceedings. Being aggrieved Revenue filed review application before the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) who rejected the said application on the count of time bar. Being aggrieved with this order, Appeal is filed before this forum. 3. Ld.A.R. for Revenue has submitted that Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) has rejected the Revenues Appeal merely on the ground that there was delay in re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur vs. Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. - 2010 (257) E.L.T. 239 (Tri.- LB), wherein para 46 of the above Order reads as under :- 46. [Order]. - In the result, therefore, the point which has been referred for consideration is hereby answered as under:- The Tribunal has ample power to condone the delay in filing the appeal including the one filed under Section 35E (4) of the said Act. The period which can be condoned in relation to filing of the appeal under Section 35E(4) of the said Act would include the period availed by the review committee in terms of Section 35E(1) or 35E(2) of the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Tribunal, there is no question of condoning the delay. It is the submission that even if the Tribunal has power to condone the said delay, the reasons given by the Revenue are not the sufficient cause for the said condonation. It is submitted that in absence of sufficient cause for delay in filing the Appeal, the period stipulated for filing the Appeal under Section 129D(4) cannot be condoned as held by the Apex Court in the case of Thakkar Shipping Pvt.Ltd. - 2012 (285) ELT 321(SC). 5. Ld. Consultant submits that in this case the order of the lower authority was accepted by the review committee and a decision was taken not to file an Appeal before CESTAT. He submitted that review once done cannot be reopened or revised as held by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at first round found nothing wrong in Order-in-Appeal and decided not to file Appeal, can subsequently review the matter and direct to file the Appeal came up before the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in case of Madura Coats Pvt.Ltd. (supra), wherein it was held as under:- On my careful consideration, I am of the opinion that the learned Member (Judicial) has rightly held in his order that once the Review Committee has taken a decision not to file the appeal before CESTAT, then in such circumstances they become functus officio. The facts of the case clearly disclose that the Chief Commissioner was aggrieved with the Review Committee's order and he has prevailed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he matter should be placed before the Original Bench for passing final order. Registry Bangalore to return the files to the Registry Chennai to place the matter before Original Bench for passing the final order. Following the ratio laid down in the above case this Tribunal in case of Sagar Sugar & Allied Products Ltd. (supra) held that matter reviewed and accepted once, not open to another Committee to re-consider same order and come to a diagonally opposite conclusion. 8. We find that in the present case the Review Committee has initially accepted the order of the Dy. Commissioner and the subsequent decision to review the order was only at the instance of Audit and the order is not free from bias. There is no provision under Section ....