TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 1114
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Brief facts are that the respondents had filed refund claim of SAD in terms of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007 as amended by Notification No. 93/2008 dated 1.8.2008. After due process of law, the original authority allowed the refund claim. Against such order, the department filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). After hearing the appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appeals filed by the department are time-barred for the reason that the review order has been passed beyond the time limit of three months as stipulated under sec. 129(D)(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) ordered for return of the appeals to the department to resubmit the same with documentary evidence to establi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hri Ganesh Aravindh and Shri J. Subash appeared and argued for the respondents. The learned counsel Shri B.N. Gururaj led the arguments on behalf of others. He adverted to para 3 of the impugned order wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has incorporated a Table showing the date of the order passed by the adjudicating authority, the date of review order as well as the delay for passing the review order. He submitted that even if computed from the date of the order passed by the adjudicating authority or the date of issuance of the order, there is a delay caused in passing the review order. Although several chances were given to the department, they were not able to furnish any details with regard to the date of receipt of the order by the rev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs 10203/2009 3.12.2009 12.3.2010 10 Sha Abhaychand Banaji 10121/2009 25.11.2009 12.3.2010 16 Intex Technologies (India) Ltd 9922/2009 28.10.2009/ 04.11.2009 17.3.2010 41 Jailaxmi Centre 10110/2009 23.11.2009 5.3.2010 11 Sri Palani Andavar Export 10124/2009 25.11.2009 16.4.2010 51 Regent Plaster Boards & Products P Ltd. 10812/2010 28.01.2010 6.5.2010 10 Associate Lumbers P Ltd 10903/2010 05.02.2010 1.6.2010 27 Sri Ganesh Timber Traders 11074/2010 19.02.2010/ 22.10.2010 1.6.2010 13 Sri Bhagawan Timbers 11454/2010 18.03.2010 / 25.03.2010 12.7.2010 18 Sidharth Sales Agencies 11426/2010 23.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 / 21.10.2010 Nil/01/2 011 Thermoking India P Ltd. 14047/2010 20.12.2010/ 7.1.2011 20.12.2010 / 7.1.2010 19.4.2011 Gebin Water Management System P Ltd. 15993/2011 05.05.2011/ 18.5.2011 8.5.2011 / 18.5.2011 26.8.2011 Transworld Wood P Ltd. 16022/2011 19.4.2011 19.4.2011 29.8.2011 Jayaraj Intl. P Ltd. 16061/2011 24.05.2011/ 26.05.2011 24.5.2011 / 26.5.2011 6.9.2011 Padma Agencies 16215/2011 01.06.2011/ 08.06.2011 1.6.2011 /8.6.2011 14.9.2011 Sree Sumangala Metals & Industries 16164/2011 31.05.2011 31.5.2011 22.9.2011 Doosan Infracore India P Ltd. 16275/2011 7.6.11/ 10.6.2011 7.6.11 / 10.6.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dispose of the appeals on the ground of limitation. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) instead of dismissing the appeals on limitation has given a further chance to the department to resubmit the appeals after obtaining the details with regard to the date of receipt of order by the reviewing authority. The said discussion is as under:- "4. On scrutiny of the orders in original by LAA and the subsequent review orders by the jurisdictional Commissioner, find the following discrepancies:- a) In many of the Order in Originals date of passing of the order or issuance of the order was not mentioned. b) If the date of passing of the order is mentioned there is no mention on the date of issuance c) The LAA pass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccordingly the last date is found out to be 31.3.2010 whereas the Review Order shows the month as April 2010. Therefore, since the last date is over by March itself, the Review Order becomes time-barred. 6. Absence of documentary proof provided by the department has led to this avoidable perplexity. I am totally not satisfied the way the department responds for the appeal filed by them. The way they filed the appeal and treated the same, makes mockery of this forum. The reviewing authorities at least should have lessened my burden by mentioning the exact date of receipt of the original orders in their Review orders. Such action by the reviewing authorities would have helped me to take up proper and just decision on merits instead o....