1987 (11) TMI 200 - AT - Central Excise

Revision application dismissed by tribunal due to finality of time-barred appeal decision.

The tribunal held that the revision application filed by the appellants was not maintainable before the Board after their appeal had been rejected as ... Revision and appeal against an order before same appellate authority Issues:Appeal against rejection of revision application under Section 35A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for imposition of duty and penalty under Rule 9(2) and Section 173Q of the Central Excise Rules respectively.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Board to entertain revision application:The appeal was directed against the rejection of the revision application by the Central Board of Excise and Customs under Section 35A of the Act. The appellants had earlier filed an appeal against the order of the Collector, Central Excise, Indore, which was rejected as time-barred. The key issue was whether the Board had jurisdiction to entertain the revision application after rejecting the appeal on grounds of limitation. The appellants argued that they had twin rights of appeal under Section 35 and revision under Section 35A. However, the tribunal held that once an appeal had been rejected as time-barred and the right of revision under Section 36 was not exercised, the order had attained finality. The tribunal emphasized that it was not open for the appellants to file a revision before the same appellate authority, i.e., the Board, after the order had reached finality.2. Applicability of previous rulings and legal correctness:The appellants relied on the ruling in Bengal Paper Mills Company case to support their contention that they could file a revision application even after the appeal was rejected as time-barred. However, the tribunal distinguished this case by highlighting that in the Bengal Paper Mills case, the party had not availed the right of appeal at all, unlike the present situation where the appellants had already filed an appeal. The tribunal rejected the argument that a party could simultaneously exercise both the right of appeal and revision. It emphasized that once a party had chosen one of the rights conferred by the statute and the order had become final, filing a revision before the same appellate authority was not permissible.3. Delay in filing appeal and maintainability of revision application:The appellants argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the postal department, and therefore, they should not be found guilty of laches. However, the tribunal did not delve into this issue as it focused on the maintainability of the revision application. After carefully considering the relevant provisions of the Act, the tribunal concluded that the revision application before the Board was not maintainable. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the impugned order rejecting the revision application and dismissed the appeal.In conclusion, the tribunal held that the revision application filed by the appellants was not maintainable before the Board after their appeal had been rejected as time-barred. The tribunal emphasized the finality of the order and the inadmissibility of filing a revision before the same appellate authority. The decision was based on a strict interpretation of the statutory provisions and the principle that once a party had chosen a particular course of action, they could not subsequently seek redress through another route before the same authority.