CEA No.60 of 2009(O&M) #2# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CEA No.60 of 2009 Date of Order: 27.8.2009 Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Jalandhar (Headquarters at Chandigarh) ...Appellant Versus M/s Kent Malleables Pvt Ltd ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Panel Counsel (for indirect Taxes) for the appellant. Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the respondent. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR,J The instant appeal filed by the revenue under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity “the Act”) is directed against order dated 26.3.2008 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax-Appellate Tribunal (for brevity “the Tribunal”) claiming that question of law would arise for determination. There is no dispute between the parties that under Section 35 (B)(1)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, no appeal was competent before the Tribunal, which has passed the impugned order dated 26.3.2008 CEA No.60 of 2009(O&M) #2# (Annexure P.3). On that score alone, the appeal deserves to be allowed. The goods were exported to Canada i.e outside India without payment of duty. It is also conceded position that against the order of the Commissioner, only revision petition before the Central Government as per provisions of Section 35 EE of the Act was competent. Shri Bansal, learned counsel for the dealer-respondent states that the period of limitation provided under Section 35 EE of the Act for filing revision petition before the Central Government is three months and the delay could be condoned only for a further period of three months. He has further prayed that if the revision petition is filed now, then the same is likely to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, he has prayed that permission may be granted to file a revision petition within the said period. There is no serious objection by the counsel for appellant to allow the aforesaid prayer made by learned counsel for the respondent-dealer. In view of the above, order dated 26.3.2008 (Annexure P.3) passed by the Tribunal is set aside being without jurisdiction. The respondent-dealer is directed to file revision petition under Section 35 EE of the Act before the Central Government. If the revision petition is filed within a period of two months from today, then the same shall be decided on merits without raising any objection with regard to the period of limitation. Appeal stands disposed of. ( M.M. KUMAR ) JUDGE August 27, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE