Dismissal of Revision Petitions for Delay in Filing under Central Excise Act

The court dismissed the revision petitions due to an 8-year delay in filing under Section 35 EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Despite seeking condonation, the petitioners' deliberate choice to pursue remedies before CESTAT led to dismissal. Legal precedents cited were deemed inapplicable, and the court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders.

---

---

Issues:
1. Delay in filing revision petition under Section 35 EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Condonation of delay in filing revision petition.
3. Maintainability of revision petition after delay of 8 years.
4. Applicability of legal precedents in condoning delay.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Delay in filing revision petition under Section 35 EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944
The petitioners filed revision applications under Section 35 EE against an order dismissing their revision petition due to a delay of 8 years in filing. The revisional authority rejected the application citing the statutory limitation of three months for filing under Section 35 EE (2) of the Act, allowing an extension only if sufficient cause is demonstrated.

Issue 2: Condonation of delay in filing revision petition
The petitioners sought condonation of the delay, attributing it to a bonafide mistake in choosing the wrong forum for appeal. However, the revisional authority found that the delay was not due to ignorance of the law, as the petitioners were a major business entity with a strong legal team. The authority noted that the petitioners had actively pursued legal remedies in the past, indicating a conscious decision to file appeals.

Issue 3: Maintainability of revision petition after delay of 8 years
Despite the delay, the petitioners persisted with their appeal before the CESTAT for 8 years until it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Subsequently, they filed revision petitions, which were also dismissed. The court observed that the delay was not due to a bonafide mistake but a deliberate choice made by the petitioners, making it an unfit case for condonation of delay or interference in the impugned orders.

Issue 4: Applicability of legal precedents in condoning delay
The petitioners relied on judgments from various High Courts and the Supreme Court to argue for the condonation of the delay. However, the court held that the facts of the case did not warrant the condonation of an 8-year delay in filing the revision petition, as the petitioners were aware of the proper appellate forum and consciously chose to pursue the matter before the CESTAT, leading to the dismissal of their appeals.

In conclusion, the court dismissed both writ petitions, finding no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders due to the deliberate delay in filing the revision petition and the petitioners' conscious choice in pursuing the matter before the CESTAT despite being advised otherwise.

---