By TIOL News Service

CHENNAI, FEB 05, 2016: REVENUE filed COD application for condoning the delay of 947 days in filing the appeal along with MISC application for grant of stay of the impugned order. After hearing both sides, the CESTAT found that:

Revenue pleads that the OIA was accepted by the then Committee of Commissioners under NLP on 21.12.2012 on the ground that duty involved was Rs.90,508/- whereas, neither in the OIO nor in the OIA any demand is quantified or confirmed by the authorities as the issue is only on the classification. The Committee of Commissioners have accepted the said OIO on 21.12.2012 on merits and the Revenue did not submit the copy of first review order dt. 21.12.2012. Another review order dt. 24.4.2015 was passed by the Committee of Commissioners comprising the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II and Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-VIII against the same OIA dt. 25.9.2012. The Committee held that Commissioner (Appeals) order is not legal and proper and reviewed the said order and recommended for filing of appeal. On perusal of the above review order dt. 24.4.2015, it is seen that there is no mention or discussion of the Review Committee's acceptance of the order on 21.12.2012. We fail to see how the Committee reviewing the OIA on 24.4.2015 was not made aware of the review already done by another committee on 21.12.2012 as review order was totally silent on the earlier review order dt. 21.12.2012. The present committee has not discussed the question of any monetary limit in the review order nor they discussed whether they are competent to review the order dt. 21.12.2012 and pass another review order on 24.4.2015. The Revenue seeking to condone the delay of 947 days for the reasons of two Review Committee orders dt. 21.12.2012 and 24.4.2015 is not justified and we are of the considered view that Section 129A (2) or Section 129D of Customs Act does not empower the Committee of Commissioners to review their own order again and take different view. There is also a time limit to review any order and the section does not empower the Committee to review the order beyond the specified period. In view of the above facts, the reason for condoning the delay of 947 days is devoid of merit. Accordingly, MA (COD) is rejected. Consequently, the Revenue Appeal along with Miscellaneous Application for stay of the impugned order is also rejected.

We bring it to the notice of the CBEC and Chief Commissioner of Customs, Chennai to take necessary steps on the powers of Committee to review the orders under Section 129D and 129A (2) of Customs Act and issue necessary guidelines to the field formations as deem fit. Registry is directed to forward the copy of this order to Chairman, CBEC, New Delhi and Chief Commissioner of Customs, Chennai.

(See 2016-TIOL-57-CESTAT-MAD)