2009 (4) TMI 26 - HC - Service Tax

Limitation - Remand of matter by Tribunal to revisional authority revenue submit that revisional authority, has passed the order within the period of two years from the date of the order passed by the adjudicating authority, therefore remand order would result into compelling the revisional authority to pass an order after the period of limitation of two years such argument of revenue is baseless because there is no further requirement of law that even on the remand as per the order of the Tribunal the period of limitation that was initially applicable would continue to apply - therefore, the remand order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is not bad in the eyes of law revenue appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to orders under Central Excise Act and Finance Act based on lack of personal hearing opportunity; Interpretation of Section 84(5) of the Finance Act regarding revisional authority's order timeline.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court pertains to the challenge by the revenue under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 against orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The Tribunal identified a deficiency in the revisional authority's order for not providing the respondent with a personal hearing opportunity, leading to the order being set aside for fresh consideration. Subsequently, an application for rectification of the order was dismissed by the Tribunal. The appellant contended that the remand order would exceed the two-year limitation period specified in Section 84(5) of the Finance Act, rendering it legally flawed.

The High Court, after considering the arguments, found the appellant's contention baseless. It noted that the original order was issued on 30.11.2004, and the revisional authority revised it on 28.11.2006 within the two-year timeframe stipulated by Section 84(5) of the Finance Act. The Court emphasized that once the revisional authority acts within the prescribed period, the statutory requirement is fulfilled. Therefore, the Court deemed the argument regarding the remand order impacting the limitation period as illogical and rejected it. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the revisional authority's order timeline compliance with the Finance Act provisions.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment clarifies the application of Section 84(5) of the Finance Act in the context of revisional authority's order timeline, emphasizing compliance with the two-year limitation period. The ruling underscores that once the revisional authority acts within the statutory timeframe, the requirement under the Finance Act is satisfied, and subsequent proceedings do not extend the limitation period. This decision provides clarity on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and upholds the validity of orders issued within the prescribed timelines, ensuring legal compliance and procedural adherence in such matters.