REVIEW PETITION 89 of 2021 on 2 December 2015

Arguments

Case :- CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL No. - 18 of 2020

Appellant :- M/S Keihin India Manufacturing Private LimitedRespondent :- Commissioner Of Central Goods And Srivices TaxCounsel for Appellant :- Vinayak MithalCounsel for Respondent :- Ashok Singh Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar Rana along with SriVinayakMithal,learnedcounselfortheappellant/applicant and Sri Ashok Singh, learned SeniorStanding Counsel for the respondent - Department onCivil Misc. Review Application No. 89 of 2021.

Central Excise Appeal No. 18 of 2020 was filed by theapplicant challenging the Final Order No. A/71274-71276/2019-SM[BR] dated 27.06.2019, which wasdismissed by this Court by judgement and order dated11.02.2020 observing that the case does not involve anysubstantial question of law.

For review of the aforesaid order dated 11.02.2020, theapplicant has filed the present review application.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits as under :

(I) Ved Prakash, who received the copy of the appellateorder on 2.12.2015 along with cheque, was neitherauthorized to receive the order nor he received the order.He received only the cheque of refund amount. Therefore,there was no communication of the Order-in-Originalimpugned before the appellate authority. Consequently,the judgement and order passed by this Court dated11.02.2020 observing that no substantial question of lawis involved, suffers from manifest error of law apparent.Therefore, it deserves to be reviewed.

(II) CESTAT while dealing with similar orders hasremanded the matter but the appeal of the applicant wasrejected. Therefore, the judgement and order passed bythis Court dated 11.2.2020 dismissing the appeal of theapplicant deserves to be reviewed.

On the other hand, Sri Ashok Singh, learned SeniorStanding Counsel of the respondent - Departmentsubmits that no ground for review of the order has beenmade out by the applicant. The judgement and order of this Court dated 11.2.2020 does not suffer from manifesterror of law in holding that no substantial question of lawis involved. The appellate authority was also right in notentertaining the appeal beyond the period of limitationprescribed under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act,1944.

We have carefully considered the submission of learnedcounsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant has admitted before usthat the person who received the cheque was Manager(Finance) of the Company. The only objection is thatManager (Finance) was not the authorized signatory.Once it is undisputed that the Manager (Finance) receivedthe cheque and gave acknowledgement on receiving italong with the Order-in-Original, it cannot be acceptedthat service of order was not complete upon the applicant.Admittedly, the appeal was filed by the applicant beforethe Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35 of theCentral Excise Act, 1944 beyond limitation by 211 dayswhereas the Commissioner (Appeals) has the power tocondone the delay of maximum 30 days. Once the factsare undisputed as aforenoted, the order of this Courtdated 11.2.2020 cannot be said to be erroneous.

No ground for review has been made out.

Consequently, the review application is rejected.

Order Date :- 30.9.2021nd