High Court allowed time for filing a fresh revision petition by 20.07.2018 without prejudice to delay in the current petition, directing the revisional authority to examine the case and cited judgments.
Time granted for filing fresh revision petition by 20.07.2018 without reference to delay; current petition disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C/SCA/6093/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6093 of 2018
==========================================================
AMUL INDUSTRIES PVT LTD
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PARESH V SHETH(3998) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 21/06/2018
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1.Petitioner had filed rebate claims. They were
dismissed by the adjudicating authority on the ground
of limitation. Petitioner's appeal was also dismissed
by the Appellate Commissioner on the same ground.
Petitioner has filed the present petition by passing
revision which lies before the Government. We are
not inclined to entertain this petition on this
ground. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that
this Court in case of Cosmonaut Chemicals v. U O
reported in 2009 (233) ELT 46 (Guj) has taken a view
that if the documents required to accompany the
rebate claims have not been supplied by the Customs
Authorities timely and if this leads to filing of
rebate claims beyond a prescribed period, the same
Page 1 of 2
C/SCA/6093/2018 ORDER
cannot be treated as time barred. We are sure, the
revisional authority would examine all aspects of the
matter including the judgments which may be cited by
the petitioner before such authority. Even if the
petitioner is correct in contending that as per the
judgment of this Court in case ofCosmonaut
Chemicals v. U O (supra), the Court has recognized a
certain liverage in the context of period of
limitation prescribed under the law, relevant facts
need to be ascertained and applied. Let such task be
first completed by the revisional authority.
2.Petition is disposed of at this stage. If such
Revision Petition filed latest by 20.07.2018,
considering the fact that the petitioner had first
approached this Court, the same shall be entertained
on merits. This petition was filed in March, 2018,
and remained pending before this Court. Revision
Petition shall be entertained without reference to
delay in filing the Revision Petition.
3.Petition is disposed of accordingly.
(B.N. KARIA, J)
ANKIT SHAH
Page 2 of 2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should entertain the present revision petition directly considering the limitation bar and the cited Supreme Court judgment regarding rebate claims.
Whether the revisional authority should have examined all aspects of the matter including the cited judgments before entertaining the petition.
If such relevant facts were ascertained, would the petition be disposed of on merits.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Cosmonaut Chemicals v. U OReferred¶23
2009 (233) ELT 46 (Guj)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Amul Industries Pvt Ltd
Union of India
Akil Kureshi
B.N. Karia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court