Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2023 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 452 - AT - CustomsRefund of SAD in terms of N/N.102/2007-Cus dated 14/09/2007 - Time Limitation - Review Authority has passed Review Order only on 12.10.2020 which is beyond the period of three months as required under Sub Section (3) of Section 129D of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the Order-in-Original it is seen hand written on the first page of the Order-in-Original that the date of receipt of the order by the Review Cell is 14.07.2010. The Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed in the impugned order that even after repeated requests the Department did not furnish the date on which the original order was received by the Reviewing Authority. The very same facts and issue came up for consideration before this Tribunal in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORTS) , CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. NAGAPPA EXPORTS, M/S. AMARA RAJA BATTERIES LTD. AND M/S. NORITSU KOKI CO. LTD. [2023 (3) TMI 1216 - CESTAT CHENNAI] where it was held that It cannot be understood what prevented the Department from submitting before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the Order-in-Original was received by the Review Cell on the respective dates on which they have stated in the grounds of appeal. As there is no evidence to substantiate the contention of the Department that the Order-in-Original was received on such dates by the Review Cell and as there is no reason to dis-believe the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that there was no evidence as to the date on which Order-in-Original was received by the Reviewing Authority, the strong inference that can be drawn is that there is a delay in passing the review orders in these appeals. There are no ground to take a different view. The impugned order sustained - appeal of Revenue dismissed.
|