TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt that the seal impressed on the Order-in-Original by the Reviewing Cell would establish that the order was received by the Reviewing Authority on a much later date. The Tribunal after considering the submissions made by the learned AR and perusing the records observed that there was no reason to disbelieve, the observation made by the Commissioner (Appeals) that there was no evidence available before him as to the date on which the Reviewing Authority received the order - Reliance can be placed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORTS) , CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. VCR TIMBER ENTERPRISES AND M/S. MEHNDIPUR BALAJI IMPEX (P) LTD. [ 2023 (3) TMI 1082 - CESTAT CHENNAI ] where it was held that It is opined that the seal seen affixed on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 013 - FINAL ORDER Nos. 40343-40344/2023 - Dated:- 26-5-2023 - MS. SULEKHA BEEVI C.S., MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. M. AJIT KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Ms. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, Superintendent (A.R) For the Appellant Ms. M. Pooja, Advocate (Sl.No.1) None (Sl.No.2) For the Respondent ORDER The issue in these appeals being the same they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. The above appeals are filed by the Department against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed the appeals of the Department as time barred. 2. The respondents had filed refund claims in terms of Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 for refund of 4% additional duty of customs paid by them in respect of g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cords carefully. 5. Before addressing the issue of time bar it is necessary to reproduce the discussions made by the Commissioner (Appeals) in para 4,5,6 and 7 of the impugned order in appeal number C/40941/2013 which reads as under: 4. I have carefully gone through the case records and the submissions made by the respondent. It is a widely accepted and general belief when an order sanctioning the refund is passed the description would have been verified and found correct and there is no discrepancy and if at all there is any difference they same shall have been recorded and the proportionate refund amount rejected. The conspicuous silence of the LAA shows that there is no difference between the description of the imported goods and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umber / 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. 6. The very same discussion has been made by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order of appeal No.40940/2013. Being a repetition, we do not think it necessary to reproduce the same again. Similar appeals had come up for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Act, 1962 reads as under: SECTION 129C. Procedure of Appellate Tribunal. (8) Any proceeding before the Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 and for the purpose of section 196 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to include the date of receiving the Order-in-Original by the review cell in the Review Order itself. 7. In some appeals there is no seal affixed on the Order-in-Original but it is merely stated in the grounds of appeal that the order was received by the Reviewing Authority on a much later date. The Tribunal in a similar matter vide Final Order Nos.40203-40205/2023 dated 27.03.2023 observed as under: 11. We do not understand what prevented the Department from submitting before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the Order-in-Original was received by the Review Cell on the respective dates on which they have stated in the grounds of appeal. As there is no evidence to substantiate the contention of the Department that the Order-in-Ori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
