TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Dismisses Appeal Due to Statutory Time Limit, Emphasizes Limitation Bar</h1> <h3>COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE Versus KASTURI PAPER, FOODS AND CHEMICALS METAGALLI, MYSORE</h3> COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE Versus KASTURI PAPER, FOODS AND CHEMICALS METAGALLI, MYSORE - 1985 (22) E.L.T. 510 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Appeal against order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.2. Excess refund of duty paid by respondent.3. Exercise of suo moto revisional powers under Section 35E(2).4. Competency of appeal based on statutory time limit under Section 11A.5. Interpretation of statutory limitation periods under Section 11A and revisional powers under Section 35E(2).Analysis:1. The appeal was lodged against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, rejecting the appeal filed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Legal, Bangalore. The Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, sought to recover an excess refund of excise duty paid by the respondent, leading to the initiation of the appeal process before the Tribunal.2. The Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, exercised suo moto revisional powers under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, to recover the erroneously refunded amount. The Collector directed his subordinate authority to appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, to address the issue of the excess refund granted to the respondent.3. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the appeal itself was incompetent due to the absence of a show cause notice within the statutory time limit of six months specified under Section 11A of the Act. The Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, challenged this decision by appealing before the Tribunal, arguing that the revisional powers should not be nullified by the statutory time limit under Section 11A.4. The Tribunal analyzed the interplay between the statutory limitation periods and the revisional powers under Section 35E(2). It was noted that the power of revision under Section 35A was subject to a one-year limitation period from the date of the order or decision. The Tribunal highlighted that even if the Department could claim back the amount through revisional powers, the action was barred by limitation as the revision was sought beyond the statutory time limit.5. The Tribunal discussed the repeal of Section 35A and the introduction of Section 35E, emphasizing that Section 35E is not retroactively applicable. The Tribunal deliberated on the retrospective application of laws, stating that a substantive right cannot be affected by retrospective procedural changes unless expressly provided. The Tribunal concluded that, in the present case, the appeal lacked merit as even the review power under Section 35A was time-barred, rendering the basis of the review order legally unsustainable.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no legal basis to support the claim for recovery of the erroneously refunded amount due to the statutory time limitations and procedural considerations.
TaxTMI 