1990 (1) TMI 261 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Transferred Revision application under Section 36(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 against rejection of Review petition by Collector of Central Excise, determination of assessable values based on sale prices at regional offices, non-production of basic documents due to violent agitation, closure of factory leading to inability to file appeal, refusal of Review petition without reasons, entitlement to seek remand.

Analysis:
The case involved a transferred Revision application from the Government of India filed by M/s. Assam Forest Products (P) Ltd. against the rejection of their Review petition by the Collector of Central Excise, Shillong. The appellants were manufacturing various products falling under Item 16B of Central Excise Tariff and argued that assessable values should be determined based on sale prices at regional offices, not at the factory gate. They declared provisional assessable values of their products and paid duty accordingly. However, a show cause notice was issued proposing higher assessable values inclusive of post-manufacturing expenses. The appellants faced challenges in producing necessary documents due to violent agitation in the area, leading to the closure of the factory and subsequent inability to file an appeal. The Review petition was filed within the requisite period, but the Collector rejected it without providing reasons, prompting the appellants to file a Revision petition.

The appellants contended that they were prevented from appearing before the Asstt. Collector with evidence due to the factory closure and turmoil in Assam. They argued that the Collector should have given them a hearing and provided reasons for rejecting the Review petition. On the other hand, the Revenue opposed the prayer, citing cases where failure to file an appeal led to confirmation of the order. The Tribunal analyzed previous judgments and noted that the appellants had not directly filed a Revision petition to the Government of India against the Asstt. Collector's order. In this case, the Review petition was filed in time and contained sufficient grounds for setting aside the Asstt. Collector's order considering the extraordinary conditions in Assam. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing reasons for rejecting a Review petition and found the lack of reasons sufficient for interference in the appeal. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Asstt. Collector for de novo consideration within a specified timeframe.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, highlighting the need for proper consideration of Review petitions and the impact of exceptional circumstances on legal proceedings. The judgment emphasized the requirement for authorities to provide reasons for their decisions and the power of the Tribunal to intervene in cases of miscarriage of justice or procedural irregularities.