2016 (5) TMI 7

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....shing the order dated 28.8.2015, Annexure P.8 passed by the revisional authority rejecting the revision application filed by it and upholding the order in appeal dated 21.8.2012. 3. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in CWP No.24967 of 2015 may be noticed. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and export of hand tools falling under Chapter Heading 82 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the assessment year 2009-10, the petitioner availed benefit of Small Scale Industries Exemption notification dated 1.3.2003. As per Rules 18 and 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (in short, "the Rules"), export of goods is exempt from duty. Even inputs can be procured without payment of duty. Ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... vide order dated 21.8.2012, Annexure P.5 dismissed the appeal and upheld the penalty apart from demand of duty. The petitioner moved revision application before the Government of India, Ministry of Finance. According to the petitioner, as per Section 35EE of the Act, a revision application against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) lies before the Central Government. However, in the provision, it is not specified that who will exercise the powers of the Central Government. The Central Government had delegated its power to Joint Secretary to Government of India. The order dated 28.8.2015, Annexure P.8 had been passed by the Joint Secretary who was Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs. Vide order dated 28.8.2015, Annexure P....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e rank was not permissible. It was recorded as under:- "5.The matter is no longer res integra. This Court in Triputi Udyog Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2010) 37 PHT 521 (P&H) while dealing with the identical issue had held that the revision by officer of the same rank was not permissible. It was recorded as under:- "Re. Que.(2): Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner was acting as assessing authority and though revisional powers were delegated to the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, the said powers could be exercised by an officer only in relation to orders passed by his subordinates and not in respect of orders passed by officer of the same or higher rank. He relies upon judgmen....