In a significant case, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the rejection of the appeal filed by the department since the order under section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962 has to be assumed as passed beyond 3 months as there is no evidence to prove delay in receiving review order.
The Department challenged the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed the appeals of the Department on the grounds of limitation. It was 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 the 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.
Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962 provided that whether the values of any goods for assessment of duty shall be enhanced or reduced by the addition or reduction of the amounts in respect of such matters as are specifically provided in this Act.
It was argued 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.
Further submitted that merely because the office of adjudicating authority and Reviewing Authority is housed in the same building, the Commissioner (Appeals) can’t conclude that the order was received on the same day.
It was further argued by the Department that when the period of three months is computed from the date of receiving the Order-in-Original by the Reviewing Authority, the review orders passed are well within the time prescribed under Sub Section (3) of 129D of Customs Act, 1962.
A Coram comprising of Ms Sulekha Beevi C S, Member (Judicial) Mr M Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical) observed that the Department was not able to provide any evidence as to the date on which the Reviewing Authority received the order passed by the adjudicating authority.
As there was no evidence to substantiate the contention of the Department that the Order-in-Original was received on such dates by the Review Cell, the CESTAT upheld the observation and findings of the Commissioner.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
