Court sets aside orders for reevaluation, emphasizing procedural fairness and timely consideration.

The court set aside the impugned orders passed by respondent no. 2, directing a reevaluation of the petitioner's revision applications on their merits in compliance with the law. The writ petition was allowed without costs, emphasizing procedural fairness and timely consideration of fee compliance issues.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the revisional order dated 04.01.2018.
2. Requirement and compliance of the fee for filing revision applications under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Timeliness of the fee payment for revision applications.
4. Procedural fairness in the handling of the petitioner’s revision applications.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Revisional Order Dated 04.01.2018:
The petitioner sought to quash the revisional order dated 04.01.2018, which was served on 18.01.2018, passed by the Additional Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue). The petitioner contended that the rejection of their revision applications on the grounds of laches was unjustified. The court noted that the impugned order was passed after a delay of more than three and a half years from the date of filing the appeal and failed to consider the notice dated 02.06.2014, which allowed a marginal period for the petitioner to pay the short fee.

2. Requirement and Compliance of the Fee for Filing Revision Applications Under Section 35EE:
The petitioner filed four revision applications under Section 35EE against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 09.12.2013. The petitioner mistakenly deposited a fee of Rs. 200/- each instead of the required Rs. 1000/-. The respondent's office issued a notice on 02.06.2014, acknowledging the receipt of the applications but pointing out the shortfall in the fee. The petitioner subsequently deposited the additional fee of Rs. 800/- for each application on 19.06.2014.

3. Timeliness of the Fee Payment for Revision Applications:
The court examined the timeline of the fee payment. The revision applications were filed on 13.05.2014, and the deficiency in the fee was cleared on 19.06.2014, within 16 days of receiving the notice dated 02.06.2014. The respondent no. 2 had allowed a grace period of 15 days to fulfill the fee requirement. The court presumed that the notice was received by the petitioner on 03.06.2014 or 04.06.2014, making the fee payment on 19.06.2014 marginally late by one or two days. The court found this delay insignificant and noted that the respondent no. 2 failed to consider the grace period allowed in the notice.

4. Procedural Fairness in the Handling of the Petitioner’s Revision Applications:
The court highlighted the procedural unfairness in the handling of the petitioner’s revision applications. The respondent no. 2 rejected the applications solely on the ground of late fee payment without considering the grace period mentioned in the notice dated 02.06.2014. The court also noted that the respondent no. 2 took an excessive amount of time (more than three and a half years) to pass the impugned order and did not provide a valid justification for the delay. Additionally, the court pointed out that the personal hearing was held on 11.12.2017, but the impugned order was passed only on 04.01.2018, which was after more than three weeks from the date of hearing.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the impugned orders passed by the respondent no. 2 and directed the respondent to hear all four revision applications on merits and decide them in accordance with the law. The writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs.

---