TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Cresol Chloride on 10-11-1992 and cleared the same by applying for necessary permission under Rule 57F(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules under GPI No. 74 on payment of excise duty of Rs. 6,90,000/-. As contemplated under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, the petitioner is stated to have filed the necessary D3 intimation on 21-11-1992 for the refund of excise duty and for bringing it to the factory or warehouse of duty paid goods. 3.It is relevant to mention at this point of time that the purport of the permission to be obtained under Section 57F(1)(ii) as well as under Rule 173H are to ensure that the very same goods, which suffered excise duty at the time of first sale and at the time of its return to the consignor continue to retain its original status. In fact the procedure prescribed under Rule 173H, when strictly applied should ensure such a position in relation to the status of the goods transacted between the parties. In the case on hand, since the return of the goods by the consignee to the petitioner took place after a period of one year by virtue of the provisos to Rule 173H, it was incumbent upon the Collector to make a thorough check while extending the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent on 10-10-1994. Under Section 35EE of the Act, any such revision should be filed within three months from the date of service of the order and necessary powers have been vested with the first respondent to accept the revision beyond the period of initial three months for satisfactory reasons within a further period of three more months. 6.It is not in dispute that the Department's revision petition before the first respondent which was belated at that point of time was not accompanied with any application for condonation of delay. As against the order of the appellate authority dated 16-5-1994, the time for filing the revision is stated to have expired on 20th August, 1994. Therefore as on 10-10-1994 when the revision was lodged with the first respondent there was a delay of 51 days in filing the said revision petition. Nevertheless, the first respondent passed his orders on 9-8-1995 in No. 27/95 allowing the revision filed by the department and restored the order of the second respondent disallowing the claim of the refund of Rs. 6,84,590/-. 7.Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred writ petition in W.P. No. 16769 of 1995 [1996 (88) E.L.T. 318 (Mad.)]. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner was two fold. In the first place, it was contended that since the Department came forward with a fresh revision petition and have not chosen to represent the one filed earlier, which alone was directed to be carried out by this Court in its order 23-2-1996, the delay as of the date of filing of the fresh petition would be more than two years and therefore, the first respondent lacked jurisdiction even to entertain the application for condonation of delay. It was then contended that in any event since there was no question of law involved in the revision petition, the same was not maintainable. 9.The first respondent has now passed the impugned order dated 4-11-1996 rejecting both the contentions of the petitioner holding that though technically the applicant Commissioner committed an error by filing a revision application afresh, it was to be ignored and that original date of presentation of the revision in the earlier application dated 6-10-1994 can be taken for fixing the date of filing. On that basis the first respondent held that since the appeal was wrongly filed on 12-8-1994 before the CEGAT and since that was well within the time, the inadvertent filing of the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 996, which is totally unwarranted and unpardonable. When scrutinising the order, the quasi judicial authority, while carrying out the mandatory direction of this Court should exercise its jurisdiction strictly in the manner in which it was directed to be done. A reading of paragraph 7 of the order of the first respondent impugned in this writ petition would sufficiently demonstrate the extreme position taken by the first respondent to comment about the order of this Court as though he was sitting in appeal over the judgment of this Court, which is totally impermissible. Paragraph 7 reads to the following effect. "With due respect to the Hon'ble High Court, it is observed that vide paras 6, 7 and 8 as enumerated above, Government has distinguished and differed from the appellate authority's order when it goes on and records. Therefore, in my considered view the removal of the impugned goods in the instant case for export would fall under sub-rule (3) of Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the claim for rebate on the basis of duty paid by M/s. Colour Chem Ltd., Thane is admissible." Hence Government would differ from the Hon'ble Court's observations in W.P.No. 16769 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;" 14.In the light of the above said conduct of the first respondent namely Thiru. B.N. Das, Joint Secretary to the Government of India in exercise of his quasi judicial function vested with him under Section 35EE of the Act having proceeded by way of criminal contempt, I feel it appropriate to take cognizance of the said conduct of Thiru. B.N. Das and accordingly decide to issue appropriate contempt notice against Thiru. B.N. Das for having maligned the dignity of this institution by commenting upon the order of this Court passed in W.P. No. 16769 of 1995, dated 23-2-1996. The Registry shall therefore, issue appropriate contempt notice to Thiru. B.N. Das, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, wherever he has now been posted and serving or even if he has retired from his service for his appearance before this Court by issuing appropriate show cause notice. 15.The writ petition stands allowed and the order impugned is set aside. The respondents are directed to comply with the order of the third respondent dated 16-5-1994 in Appeal No. 133/94 (M) and refund the sum of Rs. 6,84,590/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
