TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Revision Application Time-Barred, Dismissed for Late Filing</h1> The Revision Application challenging the Order-in-Appeal favoring the respondent was rejected as time-barred by the Central Government. The delay in ... Demand of duty - Loss of goods beyond 0.5% of allowable limit along with applicant interest - Bar of limitation - Held that:- There is a time-limit prescribed under section 35EE for filing Revision application which has not been followed in this case. As such the ratio of said judgement of apex court is squarely applicable to this case. The revision application is thus clearly time-barred and liable to the rejected without going into the merits of the case - under Section 129DD of Customs Act the condonable period is 3 months and beyond that the revisionary authority has no jurisdiction to receive the Revision Application, even for the purpose of condoning the delay. The order passed by Revisionary authority under challenge before the High Court was quashed. Provision of 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 is identical to provision of 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962. As such the observation w.r.t. Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962 will be applicable for Section 35EE of Central Excise Act - Department had filed appeal after lapse of almost four years. Department initially wrongly filed appeal before CESTAT against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) - Decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Condonation of dormant loss/transit losses in warehousing of petroleum products.2. Allegations of evading Central Excise duty with mala fide intentions.3. Adjudication of demand, interest, and penalty by Deputy Commissioner.4. Appeal filed before Commissioner (Appeals) favoring the respondent.5. Revision application by Department challenging Order-in-Appeal.6. Grounds for revision application under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944.7. Consideration of remission applications and rejection by Adjudicating Authority.8. Delay in filing Revision Application and condonation request.9. Legal provisions under Section 35EE for revision by Central Government.10. Time-barred nature of the Revision Application.11. Precedents regarding condonable limits and time-barred claims.12. Application of judgments by Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court.13. Rejection of the Revision Application as time-barred.Analysis:The case involves the condonation of dormant loss/transit losses in the warehousing of petroleum products by an entity. Allegations were made regarding evasion of Central Excise duty with mala fide intentions due to excess losses beyond permissible limits. The Deputy Commissioner adjudicated the case, confirming the demand, interest, and imposing a penalty. The respondent appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals), who ruled in their favor, leading to a revision application by the Department challenging the Order-in-Appeal. The Department raised various grounds under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944, including the application of limitation specified under Section 11A, rejection of remission applications, and the consideration of remission details in the adjudication order.The Government observed a significant delay in filing the Revision Application, beyond the condonable period, rendering it time-barred as per Section 35EE. The legal provisions required the application to be made within three months, with no provision for condoning the delay beyond this period. Citing precedents, including judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court, it was emphasized that when a claim is filed beyond the prescribed time limit, there is no discretion to extend the time limit. The application of these legal principles led to the rejection of the Revision Application as time-barred, without delving into the merits of the case. The decision was based on the clear time limitation specified in the relevant legal provisions, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory timelines in legal proceedings.In conclusion, the judgment focused on the procedural aspect of the case, highlighting the importance of timely filing of revision applications within the prescribed limits. The rejection of the Revision Application due to being time-barred underscored the significance of compliance with statutory timelines in legal matters, as established by relevant legal provisions and judicial precedents.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
