2013 (10) TMI 23 - HC - Central Excise

Court sets aside Revisional Authority's order, restores petition for disposal within 3 months. Emphasizes timely resolution and exclusion of tribunal time.

The court allowed the petition, setting aside the Revisional Authority's order and restoring the revision for disposal on merits within three months. The ... Condonation of delay - Benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act - Delay in filing revision before Central Government due to filing of appear before CESTAT wrongly earlier – Held that:- The provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act would be attracted in view of the judgment of this Court in Rajkumar Shivhare v. Union of India [2011 (7) TMI 861 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - The period for filing a revision under Section 35EE(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was three months - However, the Central Government, if the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the application within three months may allow the application to be presented within a further period of three months - There was no dispute about the position that if the period which was spent in prosecuting the proceedings before the Tribunal, was excluded, the revision which was filed before revisional authority would be within the stipulated period under sub-section (2) of Section 35EE – order passed by the Revisional Authority was set aside and the matter was restored to the Revisional Authority in the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) for disposal on merits in accordance with law. - Decided in favor of assessee. Issues:1. Rebate claim rejection by Adjudicating Authority2. Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) allowed3. Appeal to CESTAT rejected4. Revision dismissed by Revisional Authority as time-barredAnalysis:The first issue pertains to the rejection of a rebate claim by the Adjudicating Authority, which was subsequently appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed. However, the Revenue filed an appeal before the CESTAT, which was deemed not maintainable, leading to the return of papers for presentation before the appropriate forum. The second issue arises from the Revisional Authority's dismissal of the revision as time-barred on the grounds of limitation.In the judgment, it was acknowledged that the period spent in prosecuting proceedings before the CESTAT, which lacked jurisdiction, should be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court referred to the case law of Rajkumar Shivhare v. Union of India to support this interpretation. Notably, the period for filing a revision under Section 35EE(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is three months, with a provision for an additional three months if sufficient cause prevented timely application. Excluding the time spent before the Tribunal would place the revision within the stipulated period.Consequently, the court allowed the petition, setting aside the Revisional Authority's order and restoring the revision to the file of the Revisional Authority for disposal on merits within three months. The judgment emphasized the need for timely resolution of the appeal in accordance with the law. The ruling was made absolute with no order as to costs, concluding the legal proceedings comprehensively.