2023 (12) TMI 1333 - HC - Central Excise

Time Limitation - Review Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act - HELD THAT - As per opinion of the Board vide letter dated 04.05.2023, the Review Petition is filed only for limited purposes for expunging the remarks and waiver of the cost. In para 26, this Court has deprecated the action of the respondents/authority in this matter and left it open to the Higher Officers of CGST to take appropriate action against the responsible Officers, therefore, it is for the Department to examine the conduct of their Subordinate Officer for taking appropriate action. So far as waiver of cost is concerned, Review Petition is not liable to be entertained because after the date of raid, two years, the seal was not removed and assessee was not permitted to operate the machines and Manufacturing Unit which has suffered the loss to assessee as well as to the revenue loss to the Government. Review petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Review Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act, Question of admission, Expunging of remarks, Waiver of cost.

Review Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act: The judgment addressed the Review Petition filed by the petitioner, which was found to be barred by 341 days. The petitioner, Union of India, explained the timeline of events leading to the filing of the Review Petition, highlighting the concurrence received from the Board for filing the petition. However, the Board advised the Review Petition only for expunging of remarks and waiver of the cost after withdrawal of a trade notice. The Court noted that the Review Petition was filed for limited purposes as per the Board's opinion. The Court also referred to a previous order deprecating the actions of the respondents/authority and leaving it to the Higher Officers of CGST to take appropriate action against the responsible Officers. The Court dismissed the Review Petition as it was not liable to be entertained due to the delay in taking action after the raid, which caused losses to both the assessee and the government revenue.

Question of Admission: The judgment mentioned that the matter was heard on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as on the question of admission. The Court considered the circumstances surrounding the filing of the Review Petition and the reasons provided by the petitioner for seeking admission. The Court's decision to dismiss the Review Petition was based on the evaluation of the purpose for which the petition was filed and the actions taken by the concerned authorities following a previous order.

Expunging of Remarks and Waiver of Cost: The Court highlighted that the Review Petition was advised by the Board for expunging of remarks and waiver of the cost after the withdrawal of a trade notice. The Court noted that the Review Petition was limited in scope and was not entertained due to the delay in addressing the issues raised, leading to losses for the assessee and the government revenue. The Court emphasized the importance of timely actions and appropriate examination of the conduct of subordinate officers by the department to avoid such losses in the future. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the Review Petition and the related application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues of the Review Petition under the Limitation Act, the question of admission, and the considerations regarding expunging of remarks and waiver of cost as outlined in the legal proceedings before the High Court.