Does it mean 'no review' of orders favourable to Revenue'?
THE Board seems to have got its facts and LAW wrong. Both the cases cited by the Board are irrelevant. In the Northern Plastics case, the Supreme Court actually held that when the Customs Act provided for a review, the Government making a direct appeal without a review is wrong. The Supreme Court virtually recognised the State's right to appeal through an application after review. The concept of aggrieved person is not applicable to the State. How can the State be an aggrieved person against an order passed by one of its officers? So the Customs and Excise Laws have prescribed two sets of remedies – one for the aggrieved person and one for the State.
Let us take the Central Excise Law for example.
Under Section 35, any aggrieved person can appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) against orders passed by officers lower in rank than Commissioner. This aggrieved person is not the Department and certainly the Department cannot appeal to Commissioner (A) under Section 35.
Under Section 35E(2), the Commissioner can review the orders of his subordinates for satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order and he can direct any Central Excise officer to apply to the Commissioner (A), for determination of such points as may be specified by the Commissioner. And the Commissioner (A) is required to consider this application as an appeal. Here the Commissioner need not be an aggrieved person.
Similar provisions exist for appeal to the Tribunal.
So the point is that the Law provides for an appeal by an aggrieved person and appeal by the Revenue if the order is not legal or proper – even if favourable.
If Review is only of unfavourable orders, these files need not go to the Commissioners and Chief Commissioners – Sepoys can stamp on them - “Order in favour of Revenue – No review”