2016 (12) TMI 1109 - HC - Central Excise

Rejection of rebate claim - early hearing of revision application - Held that - The Court pointed out that the Court cannot issue any positive direction to the first respondent to take up the Applications on out of turn basis, as it is not known about the procedure followed by the first respondent and how many Revision Applications are listed before the first respondent and as to whether the first respondent is regularly hearing the Revision Applications. Petitioner pleaded to atleast as to when the Revision Applications will be taken up for hearing - this plea was considered reasonable - there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner s representations dated 10.06.2016, 30.06.2016, 07.09.206, and inform the petitioner in writing as to the Registration Numbers of the petitioner s Revision Applications, and within what time, the Applications will be heard and disposed of. Petition disposed off - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeks direction for Revision Applications, rejection of rebate claim, provisional registration numbers not processed, delay in hearing Revision Applications, lack of response from Revisional Authority.

Analysis:
In this case, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking direction for the Revisional Authority to consider their Revision Applications challenging the orders rejecting their rebate claims. The petitioner emphasized the urgency of the matter, as their operations would be affected if the rebate claims were not sanctioned promptly. The Revision Applications were provisionally registered but not processed due to a technical issue of missing court fee stamps. The petitioner rectified the defect and made repeated requests for an early hearing, highlighting the prolonged delay of over eighteen months in processing their applications.

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's concerns but noted its limitations in issuing a directive for out-of-turn processing without knowledge of the Revisional Authority's procedures and workload. The petitioner's counsel, realizing the constraints, requested at least for information on the timeline for hearing the Revision Applications. The Court found this request reasonable, emphasizing the petitioner's right to know the status and expected hearing schedule of their applications, especially considering the lack of response from the Revisional Authority to previous representations.

Consequently, the Court directed the Revisional Authority to respond to the petitioner's representations, provide the registration numbers of the Revision Applications, and specify the expected timeline for hearing and disposal of the applications within fifteen days. The petitioner was granted the option to present a copy of the Court's order to ensure compliance with the directions issued. The Writ Petition was disposed of with no costs, focusing on ensuring transparency and communication regarding the processing of the Revision Applications to address the petitioner's concerns effectively.