2018 (12) TMI 1292

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... I/b Sharon Patole for the petitioner Mr. J.B. Mishra a/w Mr. Sham Walve for the respondents P.C. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 17th September, 2018 passed by the Commissioner of CGST & CE (Appeals) i.e. respondent no.2 herein. The impugned order dated 17th September, 2018 rejected the petitioner's application for restoratio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... restored to be decided on merits. 4. However, by the impugned dated 17th September, 2018 the respondent no.2 rejected the petitioner's application on the ground that he has no power to restore an appeal which has been dismissed. This in the absence of any statutory provision to recall the order. Section 35F of the Central Excise Act inter alia provides that the appeal will not to be entert....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....smissal then, the appellate authority should exercise its inherent power to recall the order of dismissal and hear the petitioner's application on merits. This is a procedural review and not a review on merits of the case. Therefore, even in the absence of such power of recall being provided in the statute, every quasi judcial authority has inherent powers to exercise this power of recall in i....