TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. While computing limitation, the starting point of limitation should have been the date on which the order passed by the Tribunal was communicated to the petitioner i.e., 24-3-2011. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that should not be the date, but the date on which the order passed by the Tribunal, since the petitioner was represented by counsel before the Tribunal. It is to be noted that the Tribunal returned the papers to the petitioner for being presented before the proper forum. The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable and not on merits. Therefore, unless and until the petitioner is intimated with the order along with original papers, the petitioner cannot approach the revisional authority. Therefore, in the petitioner’s case, the period of limitation should commence to run from the date on which the petitioner received the certified copy of the order passed by the Tribunal along with papers. - Decided in favour of assesee. - Writ Petition Nos. 19179-19180 of 2013 and M.P. Nos. 1-2 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 7-11-2014 - T.S. Sivagnanam, J. Ms. V. Pramila, for the Petitioner. Shri K. Ravi Anantha Padmanaban, for the Respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a total sum of ₹ 4,00,000/- in respect of total demand of ₹ 8.19 lakhs in both the cases. The petitioner complied with the direction issued by the Tribunal and the appeal was pending before the Tribunal from 2005. Ultimately, the Tribunal, by order dated 11-3-2011 dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeals are not maintainable and the papers were returned to the petitioner for presentation before the proper forum. The reason for rejecting the appeal is that in terms of first proviso to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is ousted and in respect of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter called as the Act ), only a revision is maintainable before the Revisional Authority viz., the first respondent. The Tribunal, while dismissing the appeal observed that it is open to the revisional authority before whom, the applications are required to be filed to consider the condonation of delay in preferring the revision applications, if such applications are filed before the revisional authority. 5. According to the petitioner, the order passed by the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on reported in the case of M/s. Kaizen Organics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [2013 (293) E.L.T. 326 (Raj.)], which was passed by the Rajasthan High Court, following the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court. Further it is submitted that since the order was pronounced by the Tribunal in open court in the presence of the Advocate of the petitioner, for all purposes, the relevant date for computation of limitation should be taken as 11-3-2011, the date on which the order was passed by the Tribunal and not 24-3-2011 as submitted by the petitioner. Further it is submitted that the petitioner is a multicrore company and they have big team of legal advisers to advise them for the procedure to be followed; it is rather surprising viz., for the petitioner to contend that they went before wrong forum and they were before wrong forum for more than six years. Therefore, it is submitted that the plea submitted by the petitioner lacks bona fide. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record. 9. The short issue which falls for consideration is as to whether the order passed by the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refuse to entertain the appeal, but took the appeal on file, issued notice to the Department. In the said petition, after hearing the Senior Departmental representative on behalf of the respondent, the Tribunal passed the Interim Order on 16-6-2006 granting stay of the demand subject to the condition the petitioner deposits a sum of ₹ 4 lakhs for both appeals. It appears that the Department did not point out before the Tribunal that appeal was not maintainable as against the Order-in-Appeal dated 15-3-2005 and no steps were taken by the Department to challenge the order passed by the Tribunal though the order was communicated to the Department. 15. It is to be noted that the Tribunal granted extension of time for complying with pre-deposit order and even when the matter came up before Tribunal during 2006, the issue relating to maintainability of the appeal was not raised by the Department before the Tribunal. Ultimately, the Tribunal took up the appeal for disposal in 2011 and it was pointed out that in the light of the first proviso to Section 35B of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is ousted and only a revision is maintainable before the first respondent. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 months. The petitioner s revision was filed within 3 months and 14 days, therefore, the delay of 14 days being not an inordinate delay, the revisional authority could have considered the petitioner s plea and entertained the revision and considered the claim on merits. 17. In the light of the above reasonings, the order passed by the revisional authority stating that the revision petition is beyond the condonable period in terms of Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act is incorrect in the light of the facts stated above. 18. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside and the delay in filing the revision petitions are condoned subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits a further sum of ₹ 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty thousand only) before the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, No. 1, Vallalar Nagar, Manjakuppam, Cuddalore, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with the payment receipt and the copy of this order. Payment receipt and the copy of this order shall be filed before the first respondent, thereafter, the first respondent shall issue adjudication no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
