BRIGHTPOINT INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred challenging the order passed by the Revisional Authority of the respondents dated 6 August, 2018 (Annexure P-1 to the memo of this writ petition). The revision was preferred by the petitioner on 14 June, 2016, which was rejected by the Revisional Authority. No notice was given by the Revisional Authority to the petitioner that there was a defective filing. Thereafter, a personal hearing was also given to the petitioner by the Revisional Authority and vide order dated 6 August, 2018, the Revision Application was dismissed only on the ground that court fee of 1,000/- was not paid on time. Following which the petitioner had paid court fee of 1,000/- in the month of 18 April, 2018.

(2.) Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is a decision given by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Glyph International Ld. V. Commissioner of C. Ex and S.T., Noida, 2013 (31) STR430 (Tribunal-Larger Bench), which was affirmed by the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Glyph International Ltd., 2014 (35) STR 30 (Allahabad) that, no court fee to be paid by the petitioner in Revision Application. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the present case, as well, an application was preferred by the petitioner for a drawback claims, the same was not allowed by the respondent, and the impugned order was passed on 19 May, 2015 (Annexure P-3 to the memo of this writ petition), against which an appeal was preferred by the petitioner, which was dismissed vide order dated 15 March, 2016 (Annexure P-2 to the memo of this writ petition), which was dismissed.

(3.) Thereafter, a Revision Application was preferred on 14 June, 2016. It has been pointed out that the Revisional Authority has no Registry to point out the defects in the filing of petitions before the revisional authority. In view of the aforesaid decision of Allahabad High Court, petitioner had paid court fee of 1,000/- on 18th April, 2018. After hearing on merits, the Revisional Authority dismissed the Revision Application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the same was time barred because court fee was paid on 18 April, 2018; whereas Revision Application was preferred on 14 June, 2016. Hence, original applicant has preferred the present writ petition challenging the order passed by the Revisional Authority dated 6 August, 2018 (Annexure P-1) dismissing the revision application.