9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1082X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fund claim. The Department filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against this order of sanctioning the refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order impugned herein, observed that the review order as required under Sub Section (2) of Section 129 D of Customs Act, 1962 has been passed beyond the period of three months as envisaged in Sub Section (3) of Section 129 D of Customs Act, 1962, and dismissed the appeal as time barred. 3. In appeal No.C/40778/2013 the refund sanctioning authority vide order dated 08.03.2010 sanctioned the refund claim. The Department filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against this order of sanctioning the refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order impugned herein, observed that the review order as required under Sub Section (2) of Section 129 D of Customs Act, 1962 has been passed by the Reviewing Authority beyond the period of three months as envisaged in Sub Section (3) of Section 129 D of Act ibid, and dismissed the appeal as time barred. Aggrieved by such orders the Department is now before the Tribunal. 4. The learned AR Ms. G. Anandalakshmi appeared and argued on behalf of the Department. It is submitted by the learned AR tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision or order passed by the adjudicating authority. For better appreciation Sub Section (2) and (3) of Section 129 D of Customs Act, 1962 are noticed as under: "Section-129D- (2) The [Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs] may, of his own motion, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which an adjudicating authority subordinate to him has passed any decision or order under this Act for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any such decision or order and may, by order, direct [such authority or any officer of Customs subordinate to him] to apply to the [Commissioner (Appeals)] for the determination of such points arising out of the decision or order as may be specified by the [Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs] in his order. .... ..... ..... (3) Every order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), as the case may be, shall be made within a period of three months from the date of communication of the decision or order of the adjudicating authority." 8. In both these appeals it is argued that when the period of three months is computed from the date of receiving the Order- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is with the available date, which appears latest among the date of passing of the order, dispatch date of the order or the date on which the job number/ O-in-O number was generated. I am totally not satisfied the way the department responds for the appeal filed by them. The way they filed the appeal and treated the same makes a mockery of this forum. The reviewing authorities at least could have lessened my burden by mentioning the exact date of receipt of the original orders in their review orders. Such an action by the reviewing authorities would have helped me to take a proper and just decision on merits instead of stumbling on the limitation aspect." 10. The very same discussion in verbatim is made by the Commissioner (Appeals) in Para 6 and 7 of impugned order in appeal C/40762/2013. Being a repetition it is not worthwhile to reproduce it again. 11. On going through the discussions made by Commissioner (Appeals) in the above stated paragraphs, the strong inference that can be drawn is that there was no evidence available to establish as to the date on which the Order-in-Original was received by Reviewing Cell and apparently there is delay in passing the Review Order. The Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iling an appeal thus saving a lot of unproductive work. 15. In the facts and circumstances of the matter we are strongly of the opinion that the seal seen affixed on the photo copy of the Orders-in-Original found in the annexure to the appeal filed by the department, purporting to show the date of receipt of the order in the review section, to be suspect. Moreover we have no reason to disbelieve the Commissioner (Appeals) that no evidence was placed before him as to the date on which the Orders-in-Original was received by the reviewing authority, in spite of repeated requests. Revenues actions should be beyond suspicion. Hence the strong inference that can be drawn is that there was no evidence available to establish as to the date on which the order-in-original was received by the Review Cell and apparently there was a delay in passing the review order. 16. We would at this stage like to caution all parties concerned that any interference in the course of administration of justice is an offence punishable under law. If a forged or fabricated document is filed in court to get some relief the same amounts to interference with the administration of justice. Sub section (8) of secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
