TMI Blog1987 (11) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herein filed an appeal against the order of the Collector, Central Excise, Indore dated 27th March, 1982 against the imposition of duty under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules and a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- under Section 173Q of the said rules before the Central Board of Excise and Customs which received the appeal papers in the Board s office on 8th July, 1982. The Board rejected the appellant s appeal on grounds of limitation holding that the appellants had not filed an appeal before the Board within the prescribed time under Section 35 of the Act as it then stood. The appellants filed a revision application before the Board against the said order of the Collector of Central Excise under Section 35A as it then stood which was rejecte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion in respect of the same issue once-again and, therefore, the impugned order is perfectly legal and correct. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made before us. The short question that arises for our consideration at the outset is whether the revision application filed by the appellants under Section 35 of the Act as it then stood was maintainable in law and whether the Central Board of Excise and Customs would have jurisdiction to deal with the same when the Board had rejected the appellant s appeal earlier as time barred. In our opinion the plea of the learned counsel is not tenable in law. It is not disputed before us that as against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Indore, referred to supra, the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the authorities on time would be entitled to exercise the right of revision particularly when the appeal was not decided on merits but was rejected on the threshold as time barred. We are not able to appreciate and countenance this plea of the learned counsel for the appellants because if one were to accept the same it would lead to a very anomalous situation of the appellate authority like the Board passing two contradictory orders, in respect of an identical issue by exercising the power of revision and appeal. When once the appellant has chosen to elect one of the two rights conferred on him under a statute and has invited an order which has become final by the appellant, by not availing himself of a right of revision before the Govt. o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
