2019 (11) TMI 1202 - HC - Central Excise

Demand of Court fee - Rebate claim - It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact under Section 35EE (3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, no court fee is to be paid by the petitioner - HELD THAT - Looking to the provisions of Section 35EE (3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the petitioner was not liable to make the payment of any court fee before the Revisional Authority - in view of the fact that the petitioner is claiming a rebate of ₹ 67,73,865/- (for total of 13 8 rebate claims), no question whatsoever arises of making payment of court fee before the Revisional Authority. Nonetheless, the petitioner has already paid ₹ 1,000/- demanded by the respondents towards court fee. The revision application filed by the petitioner before the Revisional Authority is revived with the same number and matter is remanded to the Revisional Authority for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law, rules and regulations and evidence on record as expeditiously as possible and practicable - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order dated 5th December, 2018 by Revisional Authority and order dated 19th August, 2019.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition challenged the orders passed by the Revisional Authority on 5th December, 2018, and 19th August, 2019. The petitioner sought a rebate of ?67,73,865 for 21 assignments, with show cause notices issued for rejection of rebate claims. The order-in-original rejected the claims, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequently a Revision Application before the Revisional Authority under Section 35EE(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. The petitioner contended that under Section 35EE(3) of the Act, no court fee is required for rebate claims. Despite initially paying ?1,000 as court fee, the Revisional Authority claimed a deficit of ?800. However, the law does not mandate court fee payment for rebate claims. The Revisional Authority's failure to appreciate this aspect led to the dismissal of the revision application on technical grounds.

3. The Court noted that the petitioner was not liable to pay any court fee as per the provisions of Section 35EE(3) for the rebate claim amounting to ?67,73,865. Consequently, the orders passed by the Revisional Authority were quashed, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with the law and evidence on record. The petitioner's application was allowed, and the stay application was disposed of in light of the final order in the writ petition.