2022 (3) TMI 202

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ification 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 establish the date on which the review authority has received the order passed by adjudicating authority and actual date of passing the review order. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as to the number of days of delay in filing the appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) by the department. The said Table reads as under:- Respondent OIO No. OIO Date / Issued Date Date of review order Delay in days Ramachandra Art Silk Yarn Trading 10068/2009 10.11.2009 24.2.2010 15 Mirc Electronics Ltd 10000/2009 30.10.2009/ 11.11.2009 11.3.2020 31 Shri Ram Impex India Pvt. Ltd. 9789/2009 08.10.2009/ 14.10.2009 22.2.2010 39 Tarajyot Polymers 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llar India P Ltd 11860/2010 22.03.2010/ 22.04.2010 10.8.2010 20 Venus Welds 11950/2010 24.03.2010/ 03.05.2010 23.8.2010 21 Million Papier P Ltd. 12012/2010 29.01.2010/ 10.05/2010 25.8.2010 16 Gomraj & Sons 12589/2010 06/08.2010/ 10/08/2010 15.11.2010 6 Shri Ram Impex India Pvt. Ltd. 12825/2010 30.08.2010/ 07.09/2010 13.12.2010 7 Trendz Paper & Stationers (India) P 13236/2010 30.09.2010/ 21.10.2010 30.9.2010 / 21.10.2010 Nil/01/2011 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/ ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order has to be passed within three months from the date of receipt or the communication of the order passed by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) has granted several chances to the department to furnish details with regard to the date of receipt of the order passed by the adjudicating authority. In fact, the date of order of adjudicating authority itself is not furnished in many orders. The department has failed to comply with the directions passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and thereupon he had no other way but to 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lays on transit. 5. Apart from that in two appeals viz. No. 29 and 43, the Reviewing Authority did not affix the date of his signature. Review order although mentions the month and year yet the date is conspicuously absent. In the case of appeal at Sl. No. 29, the date of issue i.e. 21.10.2010 is taken into cognizance. Going by that the last date would be 20.1.2011. Therefore, the appeal has to be treated as improperly filed. As to the appeal mentioned at Sl. No. 43, the date of issue viz. 31.12.2009 is taken into cognizance and accordingly 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. ....