Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1990 (1) TMI 261

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d to as the Act) against the rejection of their Review petition by the Collector of Central Excise, Shillong filed under Section 35A of the Act, vide his Office Order No. VI/14/Review petition 2/Val/80/22 dated 2-2-1981. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were manufacturing in their factory at Makum, Block Boards, Defective commercial plywood and Rejected tea chest panels among other products falling under Item 16B of Central Excise Tariff. It is the case of the appellants that they did not sell their products at the factory gate but were sold through different centres/branch offices situated in different parts of the country. They have submitted that the assessable values of the products have to be determined on the s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is located namely, Tinsukia and the entire state of Assam was passing through violent agitation. They sought for time from Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Dibrugarh but however he finalised the order-in-original. 5. The appellants have submitted that they could not file appeal against the said order as the factory had to be closed with effect from 25-8-1980 due to the agitation in Assam. The appellants have submitted that they were able to file a Review application dated 1-10-1980 as provided under Section 35A(2) of the Act within the requisite period to the Collector of Central Excise, Shillong, Assam. The said Review petition was not heard in person and the Collector did not pass any order on it but however, they were informed by th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ector. Now that their Revision petition under Sec. 36A(1) of the Act has been transferred to this Tribunal and being treated as an appeal, they are entitled to urge all the grounds made by them. He submitted that both the Review and Revision applications had been filed in time and that this Tribunal has to proceed to examine the case, for the purpose of remand, as they had made out sufficient grounds for their case to be considered afresh. 8. Shri G.V. Naik, Jt. Chief Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue, opposed the prayer and submitted that the appellants had not preferred the appeal against the order-in-original and hence the order get confirmed. He has relied upon two citations i.e. the case of Madhukar Sahakar Sakhar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ay. It was only this order from which no further appeal lay and a Revision to the Central Govt. lay under Section 36. Neither the facts nor the law can be washed away just because the appellants chose to be non-vigilant and let the statutory time-limit lapse. No revision lay to the Central Govt. under Section 36(1) of the Act against the Asstt. Collector s order . 11. In the case of Madhukar Sahakar Sakhar Karkhana (supra) the appellants had filed a Revision petition to Govt. of India against the order of the Asstt. Collector. The Govt. had intimated the appellants that their remedy was to file an appeal against the order of Asstt. Collector, to the concerned Appellate Collector of Central Excise and not by Revision. Then they preferred a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iew of the extraordinary conditions in the state of Assam. Further, we notice that the Collector has not passed the Review order at all but only the Asstt. Collector by his letter dated 2-2-1981, has intimated about the Collector in not finding the Review petition fit to be considered. It is incumbent upon the Collector to give the reasons for not considering the Review petition. In that event, the order would have been sustainable. The appellants have filed the Review petition before the Collector and Revision petition before the Govt. of India well in time. In view of the settled law that where there is miscarriage of justice or in circumstances requiring interference, the Board/Court/Tribunal can call for records and reconsider the decis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates