Limited revisional jurisdiction requires adherence to writ directions and reasoned review; unsupported interference with rebate claim was set aside.

A revisional authority exercising limited statutory jurisdiction must first test maintainability, give reasons for entertaining a delayed revision, and stay within binding writ directions. Where the authority failed to identify any genuine question of law, disregarded earlier judicial directions, and interfered with a rebate claim without proper reasoning, the revisional order was unsustainable. The commentary also notes that disparaging remarks against a judicial order were treated as conduct warranting separate contempt notice. The revisional order was set aside and the refund direction in favour of the claimant was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revision filed by the Department under Section 35EE could be entertained and decided on merits despite the delay and the limited scope of revision; (ii) Whether the impugned revisional order could stand when it failed to follow the earlier writ directions and wrongly interfered with the rebate claim.

Issue (i): Whether the revision filed by the Department under Section 35EE could be entertained and decided on merits despite the delay and the limited scope of revision.

Analysis: The revisional remedy under Section 35EE was confined to questions of law. The revisional authority was required to act within the bounds of the earlier writ directions and to examine maintainability before proceeding further. The authority also had to record proper reasons for entertaining the delayed revision and for treating the matter as falling within the revisional jurisdiction. Instead, the authority proceeded on an incorrect approach to the filing of the revision and did not identify any real question of law warranting interference.

Conclusion: The revision could not be sustained on the manner in which it was entertained and dealt with, and the Department's challenge was not maintainable in the form in which it was pursued.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned revisional order could stand when it failed to follow the earlier writ directions and wrongly interfered with the rebate claim.

Analysis: The revisional authority disregarded the binding directions issued in the earlier writ proceedings, commented impermissibly upon the Court's order, and failed to examine the petitioner's case in the manner required. The order contained no proper reasoning to justify reversal of the appellate decision allowing rebate. The Court also treated the authority's disparaging remarks about the judicial order as conduct amounting to criminal contempt and directed notice to be issued separately.

Conclusion: The impugned revisional order was unsustainable and was set aside, and the rebate/refund direction in favour of the petitioner was restored.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the revisional order was quashed, and the respondents were directed to grant the refund of duty as ordered in appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional authority exercising a limited statutory power must adhere to the scope of that jurisdiction and to binding judicial directions, and an order passed without proper reasoning or in disregard of such directions is liable to be set aside.

---