9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isposed of - CWP No. 24253 of 2011 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 4-8-2016 - MR. RAJESH BINDAL AND MR. HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, JJ. For The Petitoner : Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Sharan Sethi, Advocate Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioner has approached this court impugning the order dated 3.3.2011 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Revisionary Authority, rejecting the revision against the order in appeal dated 12.12.2007, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Delhi-III. The Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the order passed by the adjudicating authority on 25.1.2006, who had sanctioned refund to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance upon a Division Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In M/s Prakash Pipes Industries Limited's case (supra) to which one of us (Ajay Kumar Mittal,J.) was a member, while considering identical situation, after examining the relevant case law on the point, it was held that the revision by the officer of the same rank was not permissible. It was recorded as under:- 5.The matter is no longer res integra. This Court in Triputi Udyog Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2010) 37 PHT 521 (P H) while dealing with the identical issue had held that the revision by officer of the same rank was not permissible. It was recorded as under:- Re. Que.(2): Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner was acting as assessing authority and though revisional powe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not permissible. 6. Again in the case of the petitioner itself, this Court vide order dated 5.2.2015 in CWP No. 9683 of 1990, considering identical issue wherein notice issued under Section 40(2) of the Act for revising the assessment order by the officer of same rank was challenged, the Department had withdrawn the said notice. However, liberty was granted to the State to issue fresh notice under Section 40(2) of the Act in accordance with law without prejudice to the rights of the parties. 8. In the present case, the impugned order was passed by the Joint Secretary to Government of India who was also Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs. Thus, the order in appeal as well as revisionary order had been passed by the officers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
