TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1056X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before CESTAT and CESTAT Commissioner specifically apprised the counsel for the petitioner in his order dated 9.8.2005 that in case petitioner is aggrieved with the order, he should file revision application to the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi but the petitioners over looked the Commissioner’s advise and perused the appeal before the CESTAT for 8 years and in between said period some revision petition were field in other matter, meaning thereby, it is not a fit case in which a bonafide mistake has been committed by the petitioners, more so, it is a case in which with open eyes the petitioners preferred appeal before CESTAT and after 8 years when appeals were dismissed on the ground of maintainability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner may kindly be allowed as prayed for. iv) Any other relief deed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioners. v) costs be quantified in favour of the petitioners. As per the facts of the case both the petitioners preferred revision application under Section 35 EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order in appeal No.464-465(HKS)CE/JPR-II/2005 dated 12.8.2013 whereby the revisional authority (respondent no.4) dismissed the revision petition only on the ground of delay of 8 years in filing revision petition. As per the facts of the case, the petitioner procured the raw material at Nil rate of duty under Notification No.43/2001-CE(NT) dated 26.6.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rospective effect. The matter was reconsidered by the Assistant Commissioner of Division and the petitioner s claim were rejected on the ground that the petitioner had exported the goods covered under relevant ARE-1 after 2.6.2004 only and the date of clearance from the factory under ARE-1 cannot be considered as date of export. The petitioner s appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) were also rejected. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before CESTAT on 28.10.2005 against the OIA No.464-465 (HSK) CE/JPR-II/2005 dated 12.8.2005. Finally the CESTAT, vide its final order No.A56607-566087/2013-EX(DB) dated 24.5.2013 dismissed the petitioner s appeal as not maitnianble on the ground that they did not have jurisdiction over th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, the revision petition was filed against the orders dated 9.8.2005 on 19.8.2013 after more than 8 years and the petitioner made request for condonation of huge delay on the ground that they availed wrong forum to challenge the order. The learned revisional authority observed that it was not bonafide mistake and sufficient cause which prevented the petitioners from filing revision application in time as it was their conscious decision to file an appeal, which is not on account of any ignorance of law or lack of resources. Further, it is held that petitioner is major bsiness entity, backed by a storng managerial and legal team, and the above facts fully demonstrate that they always fought their legal battle at all plate forms. When CBEC had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d our attention towards the judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court in M/s Sun Pharmaceutical Industries ltd Vs. UOI Ors. WP(C) No.7120/2001 dated 22.8.2016 and another judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of in the case of M/s. Gilco Exports Ltd. Vs. Union of India in CM No.12812of 2014 dated 17.12.2014 and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MP Steel Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise in Civil Appeal No.4367/2004 dated 23.4.2015 and submits that the delay was to be condoned by the revisional authority after 8 years. After hearing learned counsel for the parties it emerges from the facts that petitioner preferred revision petitions after delay of 8 years kno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
