Case Law Details
Commissioner of Customs Vs HCL Info Systems (CESTAT Chennai)
Introduction: In a recent order, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Chennai dismissed an appeal by the Customs department due to its failure to prove a delay in receiving an order from the Review Cell. This case highlights the importance of timely administrative processes and maintaining accurate records. In this article, we provide a comprehensive analysis of the case, including the background, arguments made by both parties, and the tribunal’s decision.
1. Background: The appeal filed by the Customs department was in response to the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), who had dismissed the department’s appeal as being time-barred. The key issue revolved around whether there was a delay in passing the review order by the department, which had an impact on the timeline for filing an appeal.
2. Arguments by the Customs Department: The Customs department contended that there was no delay in passing the review order. They argued that the Order in Original, which sanctioned a refund to the respondent, was signed on February 26, 2010. However, it was only issued on March 4, 2010. The Commissioner (Appeals) computed the period of passing the review order from the date of the order’s issue (March 4, 2010) and determined that there was an 8-day delay in passing the review order. The Customs department claimed that this calculation was erroneous and sought to have the appeal allowed.
3. Arguments by the Respondent: The respondent countered the Customs department’s claims. They asserted that it was implausible that the Order in Original, issued on March 4, 2010, was received by the Review Cell only on March 11, 2010. The respondent provided evidence, including a copy of the review order passed by the Review Cell on June 10, 2010. They argued that if the Review Cell had received the review order on June 10, it could have been delivered within the same building within the next day. The respondent also highlighted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had repeatedly requested the department to provide the date of receipt of the Order in Original by the Review Cell, but the department failed to do so.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
