Case Law Details
Commissioner of Customs (Exports) Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (CESTAT Chennai)
Brief facts are that IOCL filed the refund claim for refund of 4% special additional duty in terms of Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007. After due process of law, the original authority sanctioned the refund claim. Against such order, the Department had filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). However it was observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that though order was passed by the refund sanctioning authority on 11.12.2009 and the same was despatched on 18.01.2010, the Review Authority has passed Review Order only on 27.04.2010 which is beyond the period of three months as required under Sub Section (3) of Section 129D of Customs Act, 1962. The appeal was thus dismissed as time barred without going to the merits of the case.
Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed the reasons for dismissing the appeal filed by the Department as time barred. The Department had not produced any evidence to show the date on which the Reviewing Authority received the Order-in-Original. However, in the present appeal it is stated that the Reviewing Authority had received the order only on 29.01.2010 and that therefore the review order passed on 27.04.2010 is well within time. The learned counsel submitted that the said contention is only an afterthought. It is discussed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that even after repeated request the Department did not respond by giving the date on which the order was received by the Reviewing Authority. There is a delay in passing the review order and therefore the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly dismissed the appeal.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER
1. The above appeal is filed by the Department against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed the appeal filed by the Department on the ground of limitation.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
