AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 1287
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m for refund of 4% CVD in respect of various Bills of Entry as per Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 as amended. After due process of law, the original authority sanctioned the refund. Against this order of sanctioning the refund, Department filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and vide order impugned herein the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal of the Department as time barred. Hence the Department is now before the Tribunal. 3. The learned AR Ms. G. Anandalakshmi appeared and argued on behalf of the Department. She adverted to the first page of the Order-in-Original and argued that the Order-in-Original dated 22.01.2010 was received by the Review Cell only on 23.03.2010. The review order was passed o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... adjudicating authority. For better appreciation Sub Section (2) and (3) of Section 129 D of Customs Act, 1962 are noticed as under: "Section-129D- (2) The [Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs] may, of his own motion, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which an adjudicating authority subordinate to him has passed any decision or order under this Act for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any such decision or order and may, by order, direct [such authority or any officer of Customs subordinate to him] to apply to the [Commissioner (Appeals)] for the determination of such points arising out of the decision or order as may be specified by the [Princi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iciently brought out from the discussions in paras 6 and 7 of the impugned order that there was no evidence available before the Commissioner (Appeals) as to the date on which the Order-in-Original was received by the Reviewing Authority. The discussion in paras 6 and 7 read as under: "6. From the appeal filed before me, I find that the O-in-O was reviewed and order was passed by the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs beyond the stipulated period for such review as mandated under the Customs Act, 1962. The delay by which the review order was passed by the reviewing authority was 6 days approximately. The above delay was noticed based on the facts and figures available as such from the appeal papers filed before me by the depart....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence available to establish as to the date on which the Order-in-Original was received by Reviewing Cell and apparently there is delay in passing the Review Order. The Commissioner (Appeals) has taken all effort to call for the files to check the date of receiving the order by the Reviewing Authority so as to avoid dismissing the appeals as time barred. His efforts did not see any result and had to dismiss the appeals as time barred. 12. We have perused the review order dated 09.06.2010 and 15.06.2010. Surprisingly, in both review order, the date of receiving the Order-in-Original by the Reviewing Cell is not mentioned. When Sub Section (3) of Section 129 D prescribes a time frame of three months from the date of receiving the orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s as requested by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and that the Orders-in-Original were actually reviewed in time, they should have mentioned their findings while filing their appeal. It may have helped us to appreciate the situation better. On the converse if it was found that the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct they could have avoided filing an appeal thus saving a lot of unproductive work. 15. In the facts and circumstances of the matter we are strongly of the opinion that the seal seen affixed on the photo copy of the Orders-in-Original found in the annexure to the appeal filed by the department, purporting to show the date of receipt of the order in the review section, to be suspect. Moreover we have no reason to disbelie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine, and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine." 17. We are of the opinion that such incidents should not occur in future and considering that similar appeals are being noticed from time to time, we therefore direct the Registry to issue a copy of this order to the ....