9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 2049 - AT - Central ExciseSeeking Restoration of the Appeal - Ex-parte order - time limitation - HELD THAT - This Tribunal taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case arrived at the conclusion that the refund claim filed by the appellant issued on 12.03.2013 is hit by limitation as prescribed under sub-Section (ec) of Section 11B of CEA 1944. Since the issue has been decided on merit recalling the order and substitute it with a different view would result into review of the order a power not vested on this Tribunal under the statute. Application dismissed.
Issues: Restoration of Appeal dismissed earlier on merit, Application for Restoration, Interpretation of limitation under Section 11B of CEA, 1944, Applicability of case law
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD involved the issue of seeking restoration of an appeal dismissed earlier on merit. The application for restoration was filed, arguing that the order was passed ex parte and all relevant facts were not presented, leading to the dismissal of the case on merit. The appellant's advocate referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in a similar case. On the contrary, the Revenue's representative contended that the Tribunal had considered the limitation prescribed under Section 11B of CEA, 1944, for refunds arising from judgments or orders. The Tribunal found the refund claim filed by the appellant after one year from the Tribunal's order to be time-barred. The Revenue argued against recalling the order, stating that it would amount to a review not permitted under the Tribunal's power. The Tribunal, represented by Dr. D. M. Misra, concurred with the Revenue's argument, noting that the refund claim was indeed time-barred under Section 11B of CEA, 1944. The Tribunal emphasized that the issue had been decided on merit initially, and altering the decision would constitute a review, which the Tribunal lacked the power to perform. Therefore, the miscellaneous application seeking restoration was deemed devoid of merit and dismissed. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory limitations and the Tribunal's jurisdictional boundaries, ultimately upholding the original decision on the basis of the law's settled principles and the specific facts of the case.
|
