Court upholds rejection of plea, citing jurisdictional error; petitioners advised to seek legal recourse

The Court upheld the decision of the revisional authority to reject the petitioner's plea, stating that the orders issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise fell under the purview of appeals to the Appellate Tribunal rather than revision by the Central Government. The Court found the rejection justified under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, dismissing the writ petitions but allowing the petitioners to seek appropriate legal recourse in accordance with the law.

---

---

Issues:
The judgment involves the quashing of orders related to duty drawback availed by the petitioner, the imposition of penalties, and the jurisdiction of the revisional authority.

Quashing of Orders:
The petitioner sought the quashing of Order No.95-96/10-CUS dated 7.4.2010 and Order in Original No.34/ACE/JJ/2009 dated 6.4.2009, along with a show cause notice dated 20.8.2008. The orders were challenged as arbitrary, unconstitutional, and beyond jurisdiction. The orders created a liability of Rs. 67,42,724 for fraudulent duty drawback availment, leading to recovery orders and penalties under relevant sections of the Customs Act, 1962.

Jurisdiction of Revisional Authority:
The petitioner approached the revisional authority under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944, contesting the orders. The revision petition was initially accepted but later rejected by the Government of India, stating that the order was appealable under Section 35B(1) of the Act. The petitioner contended that the revisional authority erred by not providing an opportunity for a hearing, challenging the legality of the decision.

Legal Analysis:
The Court examined Section 35EE of the Act, which grants revisional jurisdiction to the Central Government for orders under Section 35A passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Section 35B allows appeals to the Appellate Tribunal against orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. As the orders in question were issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, the revisional authority's rejection of the petition was deemed appropriate. The Court found no error in the revisional authority's decision and dismissed the writ petitions, while allowing the petitioners to pursue further legal remedies as per the law.

---