The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax ( CESTAT ) quashed order rejecting customs refund as the order-in-original was not served.
the appellant was unaware of the finalisation of its bills of entry for which, the appellant requested for finalisation of their provisional bills of entry and cancellation of pre-deposit vide their letter, enclosing relevant documents in this regard. However, vide Order-In-Original, the original authority passed an order rejecting the refund claim of the appellant by observing that from the evidences available on record, the finalisation of the subject bills of entry were completed by the appraising groups before July 2019, the application filed by the claimant on 04.02.2020 was thus clearly barred by limitation in terms of section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.
It appeared that an appeal was filed before the first apply authority challenging the above rejection order primarily urging that the finalisation of the bills of entry was never communicated to the appellant, but however, the same was intimated to the appellant vide communication dated 27.01.2020; considering that date as the finalisation of assessment, their application dated 04.08.2020 was within the period of limitation. Hence, they requested the first Appellate authority to reverse the rejection order passed by the original authority.
The first appellate authority after considering the plea of the appellant, vide Order-in-Appeal dated 09.01.2023, upheld the Order in Original, thereby rejecting the plea of the appellant. It was against this order that the present appeal has been filed before this forum.
A Single Member Bench of P Dinesha, Judicial Member observed that “Thus, it is clear that none of the communications to the appellant indicates date of actual communication of the order in original dated 29.04.2015. Hence, the prima facie burden on the revenue to adduce proper evidence to show the actual date of communication of the Order in Original, not to speak of the date of dispatch, remains un-discharged. Even from the said Order in Original, I find that the authority passing the order has nowhere indicated about providing an opportunity of being heard, before passing the said order. Even this therefore appears to be an order passed by violating the principles of natural justice.”
“It is thus not only the order appears to have passed in strict conformity with the established principles of law, but even the communication of the same is not at all proved anywhere. Same also appears to be irregular as authorities have quite conspicuously omitted to bring on record the actual date dispatch and the date of communication of the said order, with supporting documentary evidences” the Tribunal noted.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
