9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (9) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re cleared from the Factory for the purpose of export to Tanzania. In view of the export promotion policy the duty leviable on the export goods intended to be exported was much lower than the excise duty payable for the goods to be sold in India. Hence, the goods were allowed to be cleared by the Government on the payment of such lesser duty only. However, it so turned out that for reasons beyond the control of the petitioner/company the goods could not be exported. The petitioner/company had no doubt sold the goods to Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd., for export. But since Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd., could not export the goods, application was made by the petitioner/company to the Asstt. Collector under the Excise Act for permission to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s negatived by the Asstt. Collector, who by his order dated 8th October 1975 ordered that the differential duty of Rs. 24,987.85 should be paid by the Company. He also levied a penalty of Rs. 250/- for the short payment. The Petitioner/Company filed an Appeal to the Collector of Central Excise. The quantum of penalty was challenged; so also was challenged the decision of the Asstt. Collector to the effect that the differential duty was payable by the Company. The Collector in exercise of his Appellate jurisdiction under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as it then stood, dismissed the Appeal so far as the liability for payment of the differential duty was concerned. But the amount of penalty was reduced by him from R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nity from the liability to pay the differential duty. He made it clear that he wished to keep the point open. Only Points Nos. (i) (ii) were something upon which submissions were made by the learned Counsel. 4. As regards the 1st Point, our attention was invited to the scope of the Central Government's power under Section 36 of the Act in so far as they relate to the power to enhance the penalty. It is, therefore, necessary to examine sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of the said Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 36 runs as follows :- "(1) The Central Government may on the application of any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act or the rules made thereunder by any Central Excise Officer or by the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and power to the Central Government to revise certain orders passed by certain authorities. Question here is as to which of the orders are capable of being revised. The plain reading of said sub-section (2) leaves no room for doubt that only a decision or order which has been passed by the officer concerned under Section 35 or Section 35A is something which is capable of being revised by the Central Government. It was not argued before us and it cannot be argued that apart from sub-section (2) of said Section 36, there exists or vests any revisional power in the Central Government against any of the orders passed by the authority. The suo motu power of revision of the Central Government is located only in said sub-section (2) and said sub- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Rs. 250/- maximum. It is difficult to see from the plain reading of the Section as to how the penalty could be enhanced to anything exceeding Rs. 250/-. If the Asstt. Collector was wrong in imposing the penalty of Rs. 250/-, the Collector could himself have reduced it, he could not have enhanced it. The revisional authority could only step into the shoes of the Collector. The revisional authority could pass order which could be passed by the Collector legally within the bounds of his jurisdiction. The order which could not have been passed by the Collector could not have been passed by the revisional authority viz. the Central Government. If any authority is necessary for this proposition, it can be readily seen in the Judgment of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t order its own order directing the variation in the conditions of the permit of the appellant." We may briefly paraphrase the legal position by saying that in its revisional jurisdiction the Central Government is exercising the power to revise the decision of the appellate authority. It is not exercising the original jurisdiction. This is the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment. It may be that the authority of the first instance, (which exercises original power) would be having wider powers and if the revisional authority had the original power, the revisional authority would be also having the same power as the original authority. But in the instant case, it cannot be disputed that the order of the original authority had merged in the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
