Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the revision before the Central Government was maintainable when filed beyond the prescribed limitation under the revisional provision and without a proper application for condonation of delay.
Analysis: The revisional application was filed after expiry of the statutory three-month period counted from the date of communication of the appellate order. The record showed no valid invocation of the extended period on sufficient cause, and the authority proceeded despite the petitioner's objection on limitation. The Court therefore confined the decision to the maintainability of the revision and did not examine the merits of the rebate dispute.
Conclusion: The revision was not admissible in the form in which it was presented, as it was time-barred and could not have been entertained without dealing with delay in accordance with law.
Final Conclusion: The revisional order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration on limitation and merits after giving an opportunity to seek condonation and to file objections.
Ratio Decidendi: A revisional authority cannot validly decide a time-barred revision without first addressing limitation and any request for condonation in accordance with the governing statute.