TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, the Commissioner (Appeals) instead of dismissing the appeals on limitation has given a further chance to the department to resubmit the appeals after obtaining the details with regard to the date of receipt of order by the reviewing authority. It is explicit that the department has not been able to furnish any details as to the date of receipt of order by the reviewing authority. This Tribunal had also granted several adjournments to the department to obtain these details. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, ld. AR has not been able to place any such details with regard to the date of receipt of the order by the reviewing authority. There are no hesitation to conclude that the review order passed by the department is beyond the time-limit prescribed under sub-section (3) of section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962 and therefore the appeals filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) are time-barred - appeal dismissed. - C/40497 of 2013 & C/CO/ 40712/2017, C/40499/2013, C/40519/2013 and C/40523/2013 - Final Order Nos. 42484-42487/2021 - Dated:- 23-12-2021 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri S. Balakumar, AC (AR) for Appellant Shri B.N. Guaraj, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e prayed that the appeals may be allowed. 3. The learned counsel Shri B.N. Gururaj, Ms. K. Nancy, Shri Ganesh Aravindh and Shri J. Subash appeared and argued for the respondents. The learned counsel Shri B.N. Gururaj led the arguments on behalf of others. He adverted to para 3 of the impugned order wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has incorporated a Table showing the date of the order passed by the adjudicating authority, the date of review order as well as the delay for passing the review order. He submitted that even if computed from the date of the order passed by the adjudicating authority or the date of issuance of the order, there is a delay caused in passing the review order. Although several chances were given to the department, they were not able to furnish any details with regard to the date of receipt of the order by the reviewing authority. For this reason, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the appeals are time-barred. He ought to have dismissed the appeals on this ground. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has returned the appeals to the department for resubmitting after obtaining details with regard to date of receipt of the order by the reviewing authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 27 Sri Ganesh Timber Traders 11074/2010 19.02.2010/ 22.10.2010 1.6.2010 13 Sri Bhagawan Timbers 11454/2010 18.03.2010 / 25.03.2010 12.7.2010 18 Sidharth Sales Agencies 11426/2010 23.03.2010/ 24.03.2010 14.7.2010 21 Pannalal Mahesh Chandra Jewellers 11500/2010 23.03.2010/ 30.03.2010 6.7.2010 7 Pannalal Mahesh Chandra Jewellers 11674/2010 07.04.2010/ 09.04.2010 14.7.2010 6 Shri Maneesh Traders 10840/2010 29.01.2010/ 01.02.2010 19.7.2010 80 Pannalal Mahesh Chandra Jewellers 11650/2010 07.04.2010/ 09.04.2010 14.7.2010 7 Enn Dee Granites Stone P Ltd 11428/2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... / 26.5.2011 6.9.2011 Padma Agencies 16215/2011 01.06.2011/ 08.06.2011 1.6.2011 /8.6.2011 14.9.2011 Sree Sumangala Metals Industries 16164/2011 31.05.2011 31.5.2011 22.9.2011 Doosan Infracore India P Ltd. 16275/2011 7.6.11/ 10.6.2011 7.6.11 / 10.6.2011 27.9.2011 Speciality Paper Boards P Ltd. 16447/2011 22.6.11/ 30.06.2011 22.6.2011 /30.6.2011 10.10.2011 BALAJI YARN TRADING CO 17020/2011 15.7.2011/ 4.8.2011 15.7.2011 /4.8.2011 16.11.2011 SRI HARI IMPEX 16986/2011 12.7.11/ 03.08.2011 12.7.2011 /6.8.2011 16.11.2011 S T ENGINEERS P LTD 17138/2011 12.7.2011/ 16.8.2011 12.7.2011 / 16.8.2011 23.11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the review cell. f) There was a huge gap between the date of signing of the order by the LAA and even the order date. g) The question of limitation was decided by me on the above basis with the available dates, which appears latest among the date of passing of the order, dispatch date of the order or the date on which the job number / OIO number was generated. Delay less than 5 days also was not taken into consideration while deciding the limitation aspect as it could be a reason attributable to the delays on transit. 5. Apart from that in two appeals viz. No. 29 and 43, the Reviewing Authority did not affix the date of his signature. Review order although mentions the month and year yet the date is conspicuously absent. In the case of appeal at Sl. No. 29, the date of issue i.e. 21.10.2010 is taken into cognizance. Going by that the last date would be 20.1.2011. Therefore, the appeal has to be treated as improperly filed. As to the appeal mentioned at Sl. No. 43, the date of issue viz. 31.12.2009 is taken into cognizance and accordingly the last date is found out to be 31.3.2010 whereas the Review Order shows the month as April 2010. Therefore, since the last date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
