Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
D.N. Patel, C. Hari Shankar, JJ.
Blue Whale Enterprises India Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 11490 of 2019
Decided On : 15-11-2019
No court fee is required for rebate claims under Section 35EE(3) of the Central Excise Act, thus dismissing the Revisional Authority's order based on fee deficiencies.
Headnote:(A) Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 35EE(3) - Court fee in rebate claims - The petitioner challenged the Revisional Authority's orders regarding court fees on rebate claims totaling Rs.67,73,865/-. The court found no court fee requirement for rebate applications and quashed previous orders for being unsound. (Paras 4, 5, 8)
(B) Legal Principle - The court underscored that no court fee is to be paid in rebate claims under Section 35EE(3), thus emphasizing proper application of statutory provisions. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner faced rejection of several rebate claims and subsequent orders from the Revisional Authority due to alleged court fee deficiencies that the petitioner contested.
Findings of Court:
The petition was allowed, overturning the Revisional Authority's orders and acknowledging the absence of requirement for court fees in case of rebate claims.
Issues: The court addressed the requirement of court fees and the appropriateness of the Revisional Authority's decision regarding these fees.
Ratio Decidendi: Revisional Authority's dismissal based on non-payment of court fees was unjustified, as no fees were required for rebate claims under the statute.
Result: Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of rebate claim process (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court fee exemption under section 35ee (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. importance of proper court fee compliance (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. revocation of previous rulings based on payment issues (Para 8) |
| 5. finalization and allowance of the writ petition (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT
D.N. Patel, Chief Justice (Oral)
C.M.No.47208/2019 (exemptions)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C). No.11490/2019
1. This writ petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 5December, 2018 passed by the Revisional Authority in Revision Application No.195/60/16/RA (Annexure P-5 to the memo of the writ petition) as well as the order dated 19th August, 2019 (Annexure P-7 to the memo of the writ petition).
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the petitioner is claiming a rebate of Rs.67,73,865/- in respect of 21 assignments. First show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 2nd November, 2011 for rejection of 8 rebate claims and another show cause notice dated 5th December, 2011 for rejection of remaining 13 rebate claims of the petitioner were issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, order-in-original was passed on 4th July, 2012 (Annexure P-1) rejecting the rebate claims under both the aforesaid show cause notices.
3. Thereafter, appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur. Order-in-appeal was passed on 6th April, 2016 (at page-152 of the writ petition). By this order-in-appeal, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur, the petitioner preferred Revision Application bearing No.195/60/16/RA before the Revisional Authority under Section 35EE(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact under Section 35EE (3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, no court fee is to be paid by the petitioner. As per the provisions of Section 35EE(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in case of demand, the court fee is required to be paid but in case of rebate claim, there is no such requirement of payment of court fee.
5. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the Revisional Authority while passing the impugned order dated 5th December, 2018. Nonetheless upon insistence of the Revisional Authority, the amount of Rs.1,000/- as court fee was paid initially but as per the Revisional Authority, there was a deficit of Rs.800/-. However, as per the provision as stated hereinabove, no court fee is required to be paid in case of a rebate claim by the petitioner.
6. In view of the aforesaid submission and also looking to the provisions of Section 35EE (3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the petitioner was not liable to make the payment of any court fee before the Revisional Authority. For ready reference Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is extracted hereinbelow:
"35EE. Revision by Central Government-(1) The Central Government may, on the application of any person aggrieved by any order passed under section 35A, where the order is of the nature referred to in the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 35B, annul or modify such order:
Provided that the Central Government may in its discretion, refuse to admit an application in respect of an order where the amount of duty or fine or penalty, determined by such order does not exceed five thousand rupees.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, "order passed under section 35A" includes an order passed under that section before the commencement of section 47 of the Finance Act, 1984 (21 of 1984) against which an appeal has not been preferred before such commencement and could have been, if the said section had not come into force, preferred after such commencement, to the Appellate Tribunal.
(1A) The Principal
