2019 (8) TMI 634 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - Rebate of duty - Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 - HELD THAT - The Central Government which stated that such explanation cannot be accepted as a general rule on the basis of relying upon decision. The petitioner approached the Additional Secretary to the Central Government. The Additional Secretary rejected it in a cavalier fashion we cannot but help deprecate such an approach - The official could not have summarily distinguished a binding judgment of the Supreme Court. The impugned order has resulted in the lack of remedy which is otherwise statutory guaranteed. The revision applications were also dismissed on another trivial ground to present the review petition with requisite fee. The revisional authority is directed to hear and decide the revision applications before it purely on the merits after satisfying itself with respect to payment of requisite fee in accordance with law - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the impugned order disposing of two revision applications under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
2. Applicability of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.P. Steel Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2017 (50) STR 205 (SC) regarding condonation of delay due to approaching the wrong forum.
3. Rejection of the revision applications on the grounds of delay and non-payment of the required fee.
4. Central Government's response to the reliance on the Supreme Court judgment.
5. The Additional Secretary's rejection of the petitioner's plea in a cavalier manner.

Analysis:
The High Court of Rajasthan addressed the challenge brought forth by the petitioner against the impugned order that disposed of two revision applications under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The petitioner was aggrieved by an order concerning the rebate of duty, which was challenged before the CESTAT. The CESTAT ruled the appeal as not maintainable, directing the petitioner to approach the relevant authority. However, the revision applications were dismissed due to delay and non-payment of the prescribed fee. The petitioner cited the Supreme Court judgment in M.P. Steel Corporation case, emphasizing the need to condone delay resulting from approaching the wrong forum, a point overlooked by the Central Government.

The Central Government's response was that such an explanation could not be accepted as a general rule merely based on a decision. The petitioner's plea was then rejected by the Additional Secretary in what the Court described as a cavalier fashion, deprecating such an approach. The Court noted that the official should not have summarily distinguished a binding Supreme Court judgment, resulting in a lack of remedy that is otherwise statutorily guaranteed. The impugned order was deemed unsustainable and subsequently set aside by the Court, directing the revisional authority to hear and decide the revision applications on their merits, ensuring compliance with the fee payment requirements as per the law.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the writ petition, providing relief to the petitioner and emphasizing the importance of due process and adherence to legal principles in the adjudication of matters related to excise duty rebates and procedural requirements under the Central Excise Rules.