9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 1222 - HC - Central ExciseJurisdiction - revisional power of the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Fincance (Department of Revenue) - whether the respondent authority has the jurisdiction to act as a revisional authority over the order passed by the Appellate authority? - Held that - the Punjab and Haryana High Court has considered the issue in the case of M/s NVR Forgings Versus Union of India and others 2016 (5) TMI 7 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT , where it was held that the order in appeal as well as revisionary order had been passed by the officers of the same rank which is not permissible as per law - impugned order set aside - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
Issues: Challenge to jurisdiction of revisional authority under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
In this case, a Writ Petition was filed challenging an order passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, exercising revisional power under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner contended that the impugned order lacked jurisdiction, citing a decision of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in NVR Forgings Versus Union of India. The respondents argued that the decision cited was rendered after the impugned order. The court noted that the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision had been challenged in the Supreme Court and Special Leave to Appeal was dismissed, thus binding the revenue. As the jurisdiction issue was decided against the revenue, the impugned order from 2001 was set aside on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, and the Writ Petition was allowed with no costs. In summary, the main issue in this case was the challenge to the jurisdiction of the revisional authority under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court considered the timing of a relevant decision by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, its subsequent challenge in the Supreme Court, and the impact of that decision on the validity of the impugned order. Ultimately, the court set aside the order due to lack of jurisdiction based on the binding effect of the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision.
|
