By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, OCT 11, 2014: THIS is a Writ Petition filed by the CCE, Raigad against an order passed by the Revisional authority u/s 35EE of the CEA, 1944.

The revision application against an o-in-a relating to rebate of duty of excise on goods exported was placed before the authority but the revisional authority arrived at the conclusion that the same was not maintainable. Inasmuch as it was held that major issue involved in the case is determination of value of excisable goods exported which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the authority and hence the issue is required to be agitated before proper legal forum, namely, the tribunal and not the revisional authority.

The High Court noted the contents of the sections dealing with the issue on hand viz. sections 35, 35A and 35B, 35EE of the CEA, 1944 and, thereafter, observed -

++ A bare perusal of sub-section (1) of section 35EE shows that the Central Government may, on the application of any person aggrieved by any order passed under section 35A where the order is of the nature referred to in first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 35B, annul or modify such order. The argument before the revisional authority was that the Petitioner before us may be person aggrieved but since the order passed is not in the nature stipulated by the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 35B, the revision application does not lie. The revision application is held to be not maintainable.

++ However, the revisional authority while upholding the objection lost sight of sub-section (1A) of section 35EE and that empowers the Commissioner of Central Excise to prefer an application to the Central Government for revision of the order passed under section 35A. Sub-section (1A) of section 35EE has been brought in the statute book with effect from 11th May, 1999. That does not proceed to indicate that a specific order under section 35A could only be revised and not otherwise. Section 35EE(1A) permits invocation of the revisional power of the Central Government, in case the order is passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and on the satisfaction or opinion of the Commissioner of Central Excise that the said order is not legal or appropriate. It is in these terms that the present application was filed. In these circumstances, the objection could not have been raised as to the maintainability of the revision application.

Holding that in the face of the clear language of the sections the impugned order cannot be sustained inasmuch as the revision application was maintainable and could not have been dismissed for want of jurisdiction in the Central Government, the High Court quashed & set aside the order and the revision application filed by the Petitioner was restored to the file for decision afresh on merits.

(See 2014-TIOL-1776-HC-MUM-CX)