Case Law Details
Commissioner of Customs Vs Saraswathi Saw Mills (CESTAT Chennai)
Held 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. Appeal by department dismissed as time barred.
Facts- 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 goods imported and subsequently sold. The refund sanctioning authority sanctioned the refund claim. Against such order of sanctioning the refund claim the Department filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order impugned herein observed that the review order as required under Sub Section (2) of Section 129D of Customs Act, 1962 has been passed by the Reviewing Authority beyond the period of three months as envisaged under Sub Section (3) of Section 129D of Customs Act, 1962. The appeals filed by the Department were thus dismissed as time barred.
Conclusion- Held 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.
There is no evidence to substantiate the contention of the Department that the Order-in-Original was received on such dates by the Review Cell and as there is no reason to dis-believe the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that there was no evidence as to the date on which Order-in-Original was received by the Reviewing Authority, the strong inference that can be drawn is that there is a delay in passing the review orders in these appeals.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
