9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion 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 determination at the following points arising out of the said order. 1 Whether after taking into consideration the facts stated above, the Denovo order of the Commissioner to confirm only an amount of Rs.2,86,693/- from M/s. Fragrance India, Pondicherry and Rs. 305/- from M/s. Chinni Cosmetics out of the total demand of Rs. 49,88,790.86 confirmed in the original order is legally correct and proper. 2. Whether by on order passed under Section 35C, the Tribunal should set aside or modify the order passed by the Commissioner or pass such other order as may be deemed fit. Sd/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection (2) the adjudicating authority or the authorised officer makes an application to the Appellate Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals) within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) to the adjudicating authority, such application shall be heard by the Appellate Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals), as the case may be, as if such application were an appeal made against the decision, or order of the adjudicating authority and the provisions of this Act regarding appeals, including the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 35B shall, so far as may be, apply to such application." 4. In terms of the above legal provisions, the Board was required to review the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned 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 obviously it has been sent to the Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli much after that date since the same was received in Tiruchirappalli only on 26.3.2002. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, clearly no valid review order of the Board has been shown to have been passed within the prescribed period of one year which was over on 27.2.2002 and hence, the appeals filed pursuant to the purported order cannot be maintained. The learned counsel also states that the respondents had asked the Board as well as the Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli for copy of the original review order passed by the Board u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department to demonstrate before us that the Board had indeed passed the impugned review order within one year from the date of passing of the Order-in-Original. Again and again, the Bench is being told that the Board's review file is not traceable. Hence, we have no option but to draw adverse inference against the Department in view of its inability to produce a signed copy of the Board's review order in these cases. 8. What has been produced before us is a purported copy of the review order which neither bears the signature of the learned Member of the Board nor even bears a photocopy of the signature of the learned Member of the Board. It has not also been attested by a competent official. It appears to be an unsigned copy of the purpor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 dispelled such apprehension in the minds of the respondents by simply producing the original copy of the review order signed by the learned Member of the Board. However, that has not been done and on the other hand, it is being told to the Bench again and again that the review file is not traceable. Even under the RTI Act, copies of the signed review order have not been made available to the respondents. The learned JCDR makes a plea before us that the delay in passing review order can be condoned by the Tribunal as held by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Rai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions filed before the Tribunal are not maintainable as appeals against the impugned Order-in-Original. Hence, we dismiss all the six applications tiled by the Department without going into the merits of the case, 11. Before parting with these cases, we would like to mention that these are not isolated cases. Only recently, vide Final Order no. 200/2012 dated 2.2.2012, we had occasion to deal with Appeal No. [E/150/2003 in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise V s. Anjaneya Steel Rolling Mills. In respect of the said case also, the Board's review file was missing and the Revenue lost its case on account of the same. We hope that the Department would take necessary corrective steps in the future so that the cause of public revenue does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
