ADITYA INDUSTRIES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN view of the orders that we propose to pass, it is not necessary to set out all the facts in detail. Suffice it to state that the petitioners had preferred Appeal Nos. E/1712 & 1718 of 2005 before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai challenging the order -in -original dated 2 -3 -2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad -III. When the appeals came up for hearing before the Tribunal on 28 -11 -2005, the learned advocate for the petitioners sought leave to withdraw the appeals without specifically indicating the reason for seeking withdrawal of the appeals. The Tribunal granted the request and the appeals and the stay applications stood dismissed as withdrawn.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioners that the appeals were withdrawn from the Tribunal in view of revision application No. 195/97 -98/05 -RA filed by the petitioners before the Central Government and in the submission before the revisional authority it was specifically stated that the above -numbered appeals were withdrawn from the Tribunal in view of the revisional proceedings and that this was done under the belief that only the revisional authority had the jurisdiction to decide remission of duty issue.

(3.) ULTIMATELY , the revisional authority took the view that it had no jurisdiction to decide the revision on the ground that the order in original dated 2 -3 -2005 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad -III was not the order of nature referred to in the first proviso to sub -section (1) of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 . The revisional order dated 10 -5 -2007 further refers to pendency of appeals before the Tribunal. It is, however, not necessary to refer to that part of the order.