Page 43 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] COURT-ROOM HIGHLIGHTS A101

The Rajasthan High Court in its impugned order had declined to inter-
fere with the Tribunal’s order whereby the Rectification of Mistake application
filed by the Revenue against its Final order remanding matter to the adjudicating
authority for decision in view of judgment of Delhi High Court in Mangali Impex
Ltd. case [2016 (335) E.L.T. 605 (Del.)], was allowed and the matter was ordered
to be heard afresh. While allowing the Rectification of Mistake application, the
Tribunal had noted that the remand order passed by it was based upon the con-
sent given by the authorized Departmental Representative against the record as
two facts i.e. the adjudicating authority had given detailed finding on issue of
jurisdiction to issue show cause notice and that the adjudication order as well as
show cause notice were upheld by the High Court, were not brought to its notice
which necessitated the recall of said order for fresh hearing.
REPRESENTED BY : Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Senior Advocate, Mr. Shariq
Ahmed, Mr. Tariq Ahmed, Mr. D.K. Thakur and
Mr. Mohd. Wasim, Advocates, for Mr. Sunil Kumar
Verma, AOR, for the Petitioner.

Review by Committee of Commissioners/Chief Commis-
sioners — Limitation period of three months to be
computed from date of communication of adjudica-
tion order and not from date of its signing
The Madras High Court Bench comprising Hon’ble Dr. Justice Vineet
Kothari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Suresh Kumar on 24-1-2020 disposed of the
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2211 of 2017 filed by Commissioner of Customs,
Chennai-IV against the CESTAT Final Order No. 40369/2017, dated 23-2-2017 as
reported in 2017 (356) E.L.T. 104 (Tri.-Chennai) (Commissioner v. K.V. Paints).
While disposing of the appeal, the High Court passed the following order :
“The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the short order of
the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai dated
23-2-2017, whereby the Learned Tribunal, upholding the order dated 27-2-
2015 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), Chennai, dis-
missed the appeal filed by the Revenue as time barred.
2. Both the appellate authorities, did not decide the merits of the
case against the adjudication order, but dismissed the appeal as time
barred. The order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), Chennai
dated 27-2-2015 is on record.
3. On consideration of the submissions made by the Learned Coun-
sel on both sides and upon perusal of the relevant records and dates, we are
of the opinion that the matter deserves to be remanded to Commissioner of
Customs (Appeals-II), Chennai for deciding the appeal on merits.
4. Accordingly, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the
Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose by setting aside the order of the
Learned Tribunal dated 23-2-2017 as well as the order passed by the Com-
missioner of Customs (Appeals-II), Chennai dated 27-2-2015. We remand
the matter back to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), Chennai to
decide the appeal on merits by giving an opportunity of hearing to both
sides. With the above observations, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dis-
posed of. No costs.”

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  43