TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order-in-Original. - E/227 and 654 to 658/2002 - 206-211/12 - Dated:- 5-3-2012 - Chittarnjan Satapathy, Mr D N Panda, JJ. For Appellant: Shri V V Hariharan, JCDR For Respondent:: Shri S Muthuvenkataraman, Adv. Per: Chittaranjan Satapathy: Heard both sides. 2. These six applications (appeals) have been filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirappalli pursuant to Board's Review Order No. 49-R/2002 dated 12.2.2002. The last paragraph of the said review order and the endorsements are as follows:- 6.0 The Board therefore, under the provision of Section 35 E (1) directs the Commissioner to apply to the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred as Tribunal) for correct determinat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d any decision or order under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any such decision or order and may, by order, direct such Commissioner to apply to the Appellate Tribunal for the determination of such points arising out of the decision or order as may be specified by the Board in its order. xxxxxxx xxxxxxx (3) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) or subsection (2) after the expiry of one year from the date of the decision or order of the adjudicating authority. (4) Where in pursuance of an order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) the adjudicating authority or the authorised officer makes an application to the Appellate Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals) with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner. 5. The respondents are, however, pleading that the Board's review order has not been passed within one year from the date of the Order-in-Original dated 28.2.2001 as the same has been received by the Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli only on 26.3.2002. They contend that if indeed the Board's order was passed on 12.2.2002 it would have taken only about a week's time therefrom to reach the Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli. Moreover, the learned counsel for the respondents points out that the purported review order of the Board does not bear the signature or photocopy of the signature of the learned Member of the Board. This purported order has been signed by one Superintendent named Ram Rattan who has put the date 26.2.2002 but obvi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Boards of Revenue Act, 1963 and the Rules made thereunder authorizing any subordinate officer to communicate the orders of the Board. The matter has finally come up for hearing today on 5.3.2012. The learned JCDR expresses his inability to file a copy of the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963 and the Rules made thereunder. The learned counsel for the respondents has, however, produced a copy of the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963. The learned JCDR again confirms that the Board's review file is not available. 7. Under the circumstances, we find that enough opportunity has been given to the Department to demonstrate before us that the Board had indeed passed the impugned review order within one year from the date of passing of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommunicated by a junior official like the Superintendent cannot be held to be a valid review order passed by the Board under the statute, specially when after availing so many chances and adjournments, the representative of the Revenue is not able to produce before us the original copy of the order signed by the Board Member nor the review file of the Board has been produced before us despite several directions. Moreover, the fact that the purported review order has reached the Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli on 26.3.2002 lends credence to the apprehension of the respondents that no review order was passed within the stipulated statutory period of one year from the date of passing of Order-in-Original dated 28.2.2001. The Revenue could have d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he matter is pending before the Tribunal, it is inexplicable as to why the relevant review file is missing from the Board's office. It is also inexplicable as to why the copy of the review order sent to the Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli does not bear the signature of the learned Member. A public official like the learned Member of the Board is required to affix his signature to a statutory order or direction made by him in exercise of the statutory functions assigned to him and statutory responsibilities cast upon him. In the absence of any valid review order produced before us, we find that these applications filed before the Tribunal are not maintainable as appeals against the impugned Order-in-Original. Hence, we dismiss all the six appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
