9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufacture of such export goods. 3. The petitioner exported certain drugs and claimed rebate of duty and the rebate was sanctioned by the Maritime Commissioner under Rule 18. The consignments, which were exported were rejected by the overseas buyer and therefore, the petitioner reimported the same without payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 158/95-Cus., dated 14-11-1995. Under the said Notification, the reimported goods should be re-exported after re-processing within six months of the date of re-importation or such extended period not exceeding a further period of six months, failing which, the petitioner has to pay the duty leviable on importation of such goods. According to the Department, the petitioner had not re-exported the reimported goods after reprocessing as stipulated under the Notification. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner proposing recovery of the rebate already sanctioned and after affording opportunity to the petitioner. The proposals in the show cause notices were confirmed and the Orders-in-Original dated 27-2-2004 and 31-5-2004 were passed in both the cases. 4. The appeal filed by the petitioner as against the said Orders-in-Ori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion application was filed within the period of three months and 14 days after the order passed by the CESTAT, the same was received by the petitioner on 24-3-2011 and the same is within the condonable period of limitation under Section 35EE of the Act. Further the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has complied with the order of pre-deposit as directed by the Tribunal and they were bonafidely prosecuting the appeal before the wrong forum. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that the revisional authority ought to have considered the revision petition on merits. 7. Learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents, after referring to the factual matrix submitted that the revision was filed with a delay of 253 days and there is no power vested with the revisional authority to condone the delay in terms of Section 35EE of the Act in computing the delay of 253 days; the total time taken for filing the revision is 6 years and 3 months and 7 days i.e., from 1-4-2005 i.e., the date on which the appeal order was passed till 8-7-2011 when the revision was filed. Further, it is submitted that if the time during which the petition was pending before the CESTAT was e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the application within the aforesaid period of three months, allow it to be presented within a further period of three months." 11. In terms of sub-section (2) of Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, the application for revision of any order passed under Section 35A of the Act shall be filed within 3 months from the date of communication to the applicant of the order, against which, the application is being made in terms of proviso under sub-section (2) of Section 35EE, the Central Government, the Revisional Authority, may if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the application within the aforesaid period of 3 months, allow it to be presented within a further period of 3 months. Therefore, the period of limitation as stipulated in the said provision is 3 months and the authority has got power to condone the delay for a further period of three months provided the applicant shows sufficient cause. 12. As noticed above, the Order-in-Appeal was passed on 15-3-2005 and received by the petitioner on 1-4-2005. The petitioner filed the appeal before the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eason assigned by the first respondent for rejecting the application as time barred is by computing the limitation from the date of the order passed in appeal dated 15-3-2005/1-4-2005. In my view while computing limitation, the starting point of limitation should have been the date on which the order passed by the Tribunal was communicated to the petitioner i.e., 24-3-2011. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that should not be the date, but the date on which the order passed by the Tribunal, since the petitioner was represented by counsel before the Tribunal. It is to be noted that the Tribunal returned the papers to the petitioner for being presented before the proper forum. The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable and not on merits. Therefore, unless and until the petitioner is intimated with the order along with original papers, the petitioner cannot approach the revisional authority. Therefore, in the petitioner's case, the period of limitation should commence to run from the date on which the petitioner received the certified copy of the order passed by the Tribunal along with papers. If such date is taken, the delay has to be computed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
