Page 185 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

2020 ]INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE, HALDIA 95

law, that will be detrimental to the basic structure as enshrined in our Constitu-
tion, i.e., Judicial review. Therefore our conclusion in this regard is fully forfeited
by the aforesaid reason also.
47. Though the words “any Customs House Agent aggrieved by any
decision or order” is employed in Regulation 22(8), we should not fail to note
that, there is no prohibition specifically or expressly made prohibiting the Reve-
nue from preferring any appeal against any order passed under sub-regulation
(7) of Regulation 22. Therefore we are satisfied that, there is no bar or prohibition
given in express terms in the said sub-regulation (8) of Regulation 22. Therefore
the view taken by the CESTAT, of course following the earlier view of the
CESTAT, is erroneous. Therefore we are not agreeing with the said view taken
by the CESTAT and we consciously over rule such view.
48. For all these reasons stated above, we are inclined to interfere with
the order of the CESTAT, which is impugned herein and we accordingly do so.
49. In the result, the order impugned made by the CESTAT in Final
Order No. 41695/2018, dated 31-5-2018 in Appeal No. C/194/2012-DB is hereby
set aside and the matter is remitted back to the CESTAT for deciding the issue on
merits as raised by the parties by affording reasonable opportunity for both sides
in accordance with law.
50. We make it very clear that, what has been stated in this order on the
merits of the case, if any, is only to be construed as a narration of the facts for
reaching the conclusion hereinbefore we have made. Therefore the said reference
shall not be construed as the opinion of this Court on the merits of the case, ex-
cept the point of appeal remedy available to the Revenue.
51. In fine, the appeal is allowed and the Substantial Question of Law
raised herein is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Licen-
see/Respondent. However there shall be no order as to costs.
_______

2020 (373) E.L.T. 95 (Cal.)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Arindam Sinha, J.
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED
Versus
COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE, HALDIA
W.P. No. 5208 (W) of 2013, decided on 5-3-2020
Revision by Central Government - Scope of - Revision is not appeal -
In terms of statutory provisions, Government in revision can only annul,
meaning thereby declare invalid or modify appellate order under revision on
application for such revision by Commissioner - Instant case, Central Gov-
ernment by confirming order-in-original and setting aside order-in-appeal sat
in appeal - Since revision is not appeal, impugned order not sustainable - Sec-
tion 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Article 226 of Constitution of India.
[paras 6, 7]
Petition allowed
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  185