9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 1056 - HC - Central ExciseRevision petition u/s 35 EE of the CEA 1944 - the revisional authority (respondent no.4) dismissed the revision petition only on the ground of delay of 8 years in filing revision petition - Held that - petitioner preferred revision petitions after delay of 8 years knowingly well that revision is not maintainable, preferred appeal before CESTAT and CESTAT Commissioner specifically apprised the counsel for the petitioner in his order dated 9.8.2005 that in case petitioner is aggrieved with the order, he should file revision application to the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi but the petitioners over looked the Commissioner s advise and perused the appeal before the CESTAT for 8 years and in between said period some revision petition were field in other matter, meaning thereby, it is not a fit case in which a bonafide mistake has been committed by the petitioners, more so, it is a case in which with open eyes the petitioners preferred appeal before CESTAT and after 8 years when appeals were dismissed on the ground of maintainability, the petitioners preferred revision petition, in which impugned orders were passed by the revisional authority. It is not a fit case in which delay of 8 years can be condoned to entertain revision petition or to direct the revisional authority to decide the revision petition on merit because all the facts submitted before the revisoinal authority for condonation of delay were considered objectively and, thereafter, the revision petitions were dismissed. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
Issues:
1. Delay in filing revision petition under Section 35 EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Condonation of delay in filing revision petition. 3. Maintainability of revision petition after delay of 8 years. 4. Applicability of legal precedents in condoning delay. Analysis: Issue 1: Delay in filing revision petition under Section 35 EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 The petitioners filed revision applications under Section 35 EE against an order dismissing their revision petition due to a delay of 8 years in filing. The revisional authority rejected the application citing the statutory limitation of three months for filing under Section 35 EE (2) of the Act, allowing an extension only if sufficient cause is demonstrated. Issue 2: Condonation of delay in filing revision petition The petitioners sought condonation of the delay, attributing it to a bonafide mistake in choosing the wrong forum for appeal. However, the revisional authority found that the delay was not due to ignorance of the law, as the petitioners were a major business entity with a strong legal team. The authority noted that the petitioners had actively pursued legal remedies in the past, indicating a conscious decision to file appeals. Issue 3: Maintainability of revision petition after delay of 8 years Despite the delay, the petitioners persisted with their appeal before the CESTAT for 8 years until it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Subsequently, they filed revision petitions, which were also dismissed. The court observed that the delay was not due to a bonafide mistake but a deliberate choice made by the petitioners, making it an unfit case for condonation of delay or interference in the impugned orders. Issue 4: Applicability of legal precedents in condoning delay The petitioners relied on judgments from various High Courts and the Supreme Court to argue for the condonation of the delay. However, the court held that the facts of the case did not warrant the condonation of an 8-year delay in filing the revision petition, as the petitioners were aware of the proper appellate forum and consciously chose to pursue the matter before the CESTAT, leading to the dismissal of their appeals. In conclusion, the court dismissed both writ petitions, finding no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders due to the deliberate delay in filing the revision petition and the petitioners' conscious choice in pursuing the matter before the CESTAT despite being advised otherwise.
|
