Revisional jurisdiction unavailable after appeal is pursued against the original excise order; time limits do not create a fresh remedy.

A revision under Section 36(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was unavailable where the Assistant Collector's order had already been taken in appeal before the Appellate Collector. The Assistant Collector's order was one from which an appeal lay under Section 35, and once the appellate remedy was invoked and decided, the challenge was directed at an appellate order rather than an order having no further appeal. The expiry of the statutory time limit did not convert the matter into a revisional one or create direct revisional jurisdiction to the Central Government. The revision was therefore not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a revision lay to the Central Government against the Assistant Collector's order when an appeal had in fact been filed to and decided by the Appellate Collector, and the further challenge was to that appellate order.

Analysis: Under the scheme then in force, an order of the Assistant Collector was appealable under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and a revision lay under Section 35A to the Collector. The Assistant Collector's order was therefore not one from which no appeal lay. Once the appellants availed of the appellate remedy and the Appellate Collector decided the matter, the order under challenge became an appellate order. Revision under Section 36(1) lay only against an order from which no further appeal lay, and not against the original Assistant Collector's order after the appellate process had been invoked. The lapse of the statutory time limit did not alter the legal character of the remedy or create a direct revisional jurisdiction.

Conclusion: No revision lay to the Central Government under Section 36(1) against the Assistant Collector's order in the circumstances of the case, and the appeal was without merit.

---