TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Tribunal in M/S. VCR TIMBER ENTERPRISES AND M/S. MEHNDIPUR BALAJI IMPEX (P) LTD. [ 2023 (3) TMI 1082 - CESTAT CHENNAI ] held that 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. The contention of the Department that the order was received by the reviewing authority only on 23.03.2010, cannot be accepted - there are no grounds to interfere with the observations and findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal filed by the Department is dismissed. - Customs Appeal No.40842 of 2013 - FINAL ORDER NO. 40202 / 2023 - Dated:- 27-3-2023 - MS. SULEKHA BEEVI C.S., MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. M. AJIT KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Ms. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, Superintendent (A.R) - For the Appellant None - For the Responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsection (2) shall be made within a period of three months from the date of communication of the 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. 6. From the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atisfied the way the department responds for the appeal filed by them. The way they filed the appeal and treated the same makes 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. 8. We are not able to understand why the Department failed to point out the date seal of the Reviewing Authority before the Commissioner (Appeals). The very same facts and issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal in other appeals filed by the Department. The Tribunal vide Final Order Nos.40183-40184/2023 dated 23.03.2023 observed as under: 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 Commissioner (Appeals) has taken all effort t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 section 129C of the Customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
