2011 (8) TMI 931 - HC - Central Excise

An assessee under the Central Excise Act, 1954 suffered an adverse order dated 29-3-2007 passed by CCE(A), Jaipur in appeal No. 265 (HKS)CE/JPR-11/2007 - Revision petition before the central government - Notice of this petition was served upon the respondents i.e. Ministry of Finance and Commissioner of Excise - The need to remand has occasioned for the reason that admittedly during pendency of the revision petition before the Government, the petitioner by their letter dated 24-12-2009 (Annex. P/9) had submitted additional documents in relation to the proof of export of the material which was subject matter of the controversy - Held that finding recorded by the revisional authority is based on non-consideration of the additional documents sent by the petitioner vide their letter dated 24-12-2007 - Decided in favor of the assessee by way of remand to revisional authority

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to order dated 5-3-2010 under Central Excise Act, 1954; Validity of proof of export submission; Non-consideration of additional documents by revisionary authority; Remand for fresh decision by Joint Secretary to the Government of India.

Analysis:

The petitioner challenged an adverse order dated 5-3-2010 under the Central Excise Act, 1954, passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance. The petitioner sought to challenge this order as it upheld the previous adverse order due to the alleged failure to submit valid proof of export. The High Court, after hearing both parties, decided to allow the writ petition and remand the case back to the revisionary authority for a fresh decision.

The High Court found that the need for remand arose because the petitioner had submitted additional documents related to proof of export during the revision petition, which were not considered by the revisionary authority. The petitioner had sent these documents by registered post, but they were not taken into account when the adverse order was upheld. Therefore, the High Court decided to remand the case to the revisionary authority for a reevaluation, considering all the documents submitted by the petitioner.

The Court observed that the revisionary authority had not considered any of the additional documents filed by the petitioner, leading to a decision based on incomplete information. The High Court granted the petitioner the liberty to file these documents again before the revisionary authority if they were not found in the record. The Court directed the revisionary authority to hear and decide the revision strictly in accordance with the law, considering all documents filed by the petitioner to determine if the proof of export was established.

Ultimately, the High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order and restoring the revision to the file of the Government of India for a fresh decision by the Joint Secretary. The Court instructed that the revision should be decided within six months from the date of the order's production, with the petitioner required to act within three weeks. This comprehensive analysis highlights the legal intricacies and procedural aspects involved in the judgment, ensuring a detailed understanding of the case.