TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cases, the review orders have been passed after the stipulated period of 3 months from the date of communication of the order in original since the date of dispatch of the impugned order could not be ascertained with authenticity and the delay in such cases were not considered. The onus is on the appellants that the review orders have been passed within the stipulated time. If the department was unable to discharge such onus, then the consequence has to necessarily follow. The Tribunal also pointed out that the Commissioner (Appeals) has flagged the number of days of noncondonable delay in each of the cases which has not been disputed by the Department. Therefore, the Tribunal held that they are not inclined to interfere with the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether the Tribunal was correct in declining to exercise the statutory power vested under Section 129D(4) r/w Section 123A of the Customs Act, 1962 resulted in miscarriage of justice. (iv) Whether the Tribunal was correct in not applying the ration laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Thakker Shipping P Ltd., Vs.CC reported in 2012 (285) ELT 321. (iv) Whether the Tribunal went wrong in ignoring that the limitation of three months for passing review order under Section 129D (2) starts from the date of receipt of the communication of the order of the adjudicating authority by the review cell and not the date of order, in the light of the Amendment inserted by Finance Act, 2008 (18 of 2008) dated 10.05.2008. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od of three months from the date of communication of the O-In-O. Since, the date of dispatch of the impugned order could not be ascertained with authenticity the delay in such cases were not considered. However, the mandatory requirement of filing an appeal within 1 month was also not followed as it is evident from the above table. There is no condonation provision for the Commissioner (Appeals) for the appeals filed under Section 129D. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the case, I reject all the appeals as time barred. 6. The Revenue carried on the matter by way of appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the appeals confirming the order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals). Befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Tribunal held that they are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Before us the Department cannot seek for a roving enquiry or for re-adjudication of facts which has been done by the Tribunal. 9. Therefore, we are of the considered view, that the order passed by the Tribunal confirming the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the appeals on the ground of limitation alone requires to be confirmed and consequently we hold that there is no substantial questions of law arising for consideration in these appeals. We make it clear that we have rejected these appeals only on the ground of limitation and we have not gone into merits of matter which neither Commissioner has gone into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
