Improperly constituted revisional authority led to quashing of the order and remand for fresh decision on merits.
A revisional order under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act was challenged on the ground that the revision was decided by an authority of the same rank as the appellate authority, making the constitution of the revisional forum improper. The revisional order was quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration by the competent revisional authority. The authority was directed to hear the parties fully and pass a reasoned order on merits after proper constitution of the revisional forum.
Issues: Whether the revisional order was liable to be quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration on the ground that the revisional authority was not properly constituted and the petitioner's revision had not been decided by an uninvolved authority.
Analysis: The writ petition assailed the revisional order passed under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The challenge succeeded on the ground that the authority who decided the revision was in the same rank as the authority whose appellate order was under challenge, which was considered impermissible. The Court noted that the revisional authority had since been reconstituted and held that the matter required reconsideration by the present revisional authority after giving full opportunity of hearing and by passing a reasoned order on merits.
Conclusion: The impugned revisional order was quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh decision by the competent revisional authority.
Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained a remand for de novo consideration before the properly constituted revisional authority in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: An order passed by an authority that is not properly constituted to decide the revision cannot be sustained, and the matter must be reheard by a competent authority after affording full hearing and passing a reasoned order.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
