Commissioner of Customs (Exports) Vs Nagappa Exports (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT Chennai held that appeal by department dismissed as time-barred as review order as required u/s 129D(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 assumed to have been passed beyond 3 months as no evidence produced proving delay in receiving review order.
Facts- Revenue has preferred the present appeal mainly contesting that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeals of the Department on the grounds of limitation. It was submitted that the dismissed the appeals on the grounds of limitation holding that the review order as required under Sub Section (2) of Section 129D of Customs Act, 1962 has been passed beyond the period of three months as envisaged in Sub Section (3) of Section 129D of Customs Act, 1962. It is argued by the Department that the Commissioner (Appeals) has computed the period of three months from the date of Order-in-Original whereas the period of three months ought to have been computed from the date of receiving the Order-in-Original by the Reviewing Authority.
Conclusion- 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-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.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER
1. The issue involved in all these appeals being the same, the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. The appeals are filed by the Department against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed the appeals of the Department on the grounds of limitation.
2. On behalf of the Department, it is submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeals on the grounds of limitation holding that the review order as required under Sub Section (2) of Section 129D of Customs Act, 1962 has been passed beyond the period of three months as envisaged in Sub Section (3) of Section 129D of Customs Act, 1962. It is argued by the Department that the Commissioner (Appeals) has computed the period of three months from the date of Order-in-Original whereas the period of three months ought to have been computed from the date of receiving the Order-in-Original by the Reviewing Authority. If the period of three months is computed from the date of receiving the Order- in Original by the Reviewing Authority, the review order passed is well within three months. The dates relevant for consideration are as below:
