9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d refund claim of SAD in terms of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007 as amended by Notification No. 93/2008 dated 1.8.2008. After due process of law, the original authority allowed the refund claim. Against such order, the department filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). After hearing the appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appeals filed by the department are time-barred for the reason that the review order has been passed beyond the time limit of three months as stipulated under sec. 129(D)(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) ordered for return of the appeals to the department to resubmit the same with documentary evidence to establish the date on which the review authority has re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16 Intex Technologies (India) Ltd 9922/2009 28.10.2009/ 04.11.2009 17.3.2010 41 Jailaxmi Centre 10110/2009 23.11.2009 5.3.2010 11 Sri Palani Andavar Export 10124/2009 25.11.2009 16.4.2010 51 Regent Plaster Boards & Products P Ltd. 10812/2010 28.01.2010 6.5.2010 10 Associate Lumbers P Ltd 10903/2010 05.02.2010 1.6.2010 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/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05.2011/ 26.05.2011 24.5.2011 / 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 23.11.2011 SOUTH INDIA GLASS IMPEX ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any of the Order in Originals date of passing of the order or issuance of the order was not mentioned. b) If the date of passing of the order is mentioned there is no mention on the date of issuance c) The LAA passed the order on certain dates and subsequently after an unexplained delay the job number and the Order in Original was generated. d) Invariably date of receipt of the order by the review cell was not indicated anywhere. e) In the review orders also the reviewing authority did not make any mention of the date on which either he received the file for reviewing or the date of receipt of the Order in Original by the review cell. f) There was a huge gap between the date of signing of the order by the LAA and even the order d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of receipt of the original orders in their Review orders. Such action by the reviewing authorities would have helped me to take up proper and just decision on merits instead of stumbling on the limitation aspect. Many of the respondents have promptly pointed out this feel, I am totally let down by the department in these appeals before the respondents. Hope in future the department will take appropriate measures to avoid such a situation where the respondents cannot raise a finger and fault the department. The only solace I find in these department appeals are that the original authority had filed the appeals in time (within one month) from the date of review orders." 8. From the discussions made by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
