1979 (10) TMI 78 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Express Cables' Revision Applications Dismissed for Lack of Locus Standi and Maintainability

The revision application filed by M/s. Express Cables Private Limited against the Central Board of Excise and Customs' order under Section 130 was ... Revision petition Issues:1. Maintainability of revision application under Section 131 against the order passed by the Board in exercise of powers of revision under Section 130.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the revision application filed by M/s. Express Cables Private Limited against an order passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. The original order in question was issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta, rejecting a request for extension of time regarding the submission of end-use certificates by M/s. Minerals & Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd. It is noted that M/s. Minerals & Metals Trading Corporation did not appeal or seek revision of this order. Instead, M/s. Express Cables Private Limited filed a revision application before the Board under Section 130, which was subsequently dismissed on grounds of lack of locus standi. The Board held that only M/s. Minerals & Metals Trading Corporation had the right to file a revision application or appeal against the Assistant Collector's order. Consequently, the Board dismissed the revision application filed by M/s. Express Cables Private Limited.The petitioners, dissatisfied with the Board's decision, filed a revision application before the Government under Section 131. However, the Government observed that a revision application under Section 131 lies only in specific situations as per the provisions of the Customs Act. The Government emphasized that the petitioners' case did not fall within the ambit of the provisos to Section 130(1). Specifically, there was no enhancement of penalty, fine in lieu of confiscation, or confiscation of goods of greater value, nor was there any levy or enhancement of customs duty by the Board. As a result, the petitioners did not have the right to file a revision application under Section 131 against the Board's order passed under Section 130.Consequently, the Government held that the revision application filed by the petitioners was not maintainable under Section 131 due to the legal position outlined. The Government also noted that since the legal position was clear, a personal hearing was deemed unnecessary. Ultimately, the revision application was deemed incompetent and dismissed on the grounds of lack of maintainability under Section 131.