Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2018 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1740 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - finalisation of the assessment in respect of the shipping bills - Revenue has preferred the present appeal inter alia, on the ground that assessment done by the original authority based on the price actually payable as per the formula prescribed under the contract is the correct transaction value for the purpose of determination of the duty liability - HELD THAT:- The impugned order was reviewed by the Committee of Commissioners and vide order dt. 8.9.2016, the said Committee had taken the view that no appeal shall be filed against the impugned order dt. 31.05.2016. Subsequently, the matter was referred by a newly constituted Committee of Commissioners, who vide Review Order dt. 8.8.2017 have held that the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is not legal and proper and accordingly, directed the concerned officer for filing of appeal before the Tribunal. In the impugned Review Order, no such statutory provisions were mentioned, which empowers the authorities to again review the order, which was already reviewed earlier by the competent authorities. Once, a review committee has taken a decision not to file the appeal before the Tribunal, then in such circumstances, they become functus officio inasmuch as such Committee of Commissioners has no power to review its decision and such a review on re-examination of facts or position of law cannot be allowed. It is evident that the said review order has been passed after 13 months from the date of passing of the impugned order. Insofar as reviewing the order of the appellate Commissioner is concerned, sub-section (3) of Section 129D ibid mandates that the review order shall be made within a period of three months from the date of communication of the decision or order of the adjudicating authority. Proviso clause appended to the said sub-section provides that the Board may, on sufficient cause being shown, extend the said period by another thirty days. Time limitation - HELD THAT:- On careful reading of the said statutory provisions, it reveals that beyond the period of four months from the date of receipt of the impugned order, the appeal cannot be preferred by Revenue before the Tribunal. Further, no powers have been vested on the Tribunal to condone the delay in passing of the Review order beyond the prescribed time frame. Since Tribunal is a creature under the statute, it has to strictly follow the statutory provisions in entertaining the appeal filed before it - on the ground of limitation also, the appeals filed by Revenue are not maintainable. There are no merits in the appeals filed by Revenue on the ground of maintainability as well as limitation - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|