JUDGMENT P. Subramonian Poti, J. 1. The petitioner is a firm engaged in the business of exporting marine sea foods. For the purpose of initial setting up of a Freezer Plant in the factory at Paliuruthy, the petitioner imported an Amerio Plate Freezer cabinet with freezing plates. The petitioner claims that such import was covered by an exemption certificate dated 16th March 1971 issued by the Director of Industries and Commerce, Trivandrum. The petitioner case is that though a freezer plant had to be set up the entire freezer lant could not be imported by the petitioner on account of the limited foreign exchange sanctioned. The freezer lant to be set up required park such as condensing unit, ompressor motor pump and cooling tower. These essential arts were not imported as they could be obtained from adigenous manufacture. The freezer was allowed clearance on payment of duty at 10 per cent under item 72 (25) of the indian Customs Tariff with countervailing duty at 40 percent plus 331/3 percent under item 29A (1) Central Excise Tariff. The essential spare parts were allowed clearance on assessment with countervailing duty. The petitioner firm applied for refund of countervailing duty on the ground hat such duty was collected in excess. This claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs on the ground that the goods were not exempt from countervailing duty and the assessment already made was in order. The order was taken up in appeal before the Appellate Collector of Customs, who by his order, Ext. P-6, held that the "freezer plant for which the contract freezer was imported or the purpose of assembly, did not attract the levy of countervailing duty. Consequential refund of the duty vas directed to be made to the appellant. This order, Ext. P-6, was suo motu sought to be revised and was so revised by the Government of India by Ext. P-12 order after service of a show cause notice to the firm and after considering its reply. This order is under challenge in this original petition. 2. One of the contentions raised concerns the justification for the imposition of countervailing duty. It is not necessary to go into this question for the reason that the contention raised before me that the action for revision of Ext. This order is under challenge in this original petition. 2. One of the contentions raised concerns the justification for the imposition of countervailing duty. It is not necessary to go into this question for the reason that the contention raised before me that the action for revision of Ext. P-6 order was initiated out of time has to be found in favour of the petitioner and if so that would be sufficient for the disposal of this petition. Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962 reads: "131 (1) The Central Government may, on the application of any Person aggrieved by" (a) any order passed under section 128, or (b) any order passed under section 130 otherwise than on the application of any aggrieved person, or (c) any order passed on the application of any aggrieved person under section 130 where the order is of the nature referred to in either of the provisos to sub-section (1) of that section, annul or modify such order. (2) An application under sub-section (1) shall be made within six months from the date of the communication to the applicant of the order against which the application is being made: Provided that the Central Government may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the application within the aforesaid period of six months, allow it to be presented within a further period of six months. (3) The Central Government may of its own motion annul or modify any order passed under section 128 or section 130. (3) The Central Government may of its own motion annul or modify any order passed under section 128 or section 130. (4) No order enhancing any penalty or fine in lieu of confiscation or confiscating goods of greater value shall be passed under this section- (a) in any case in which an order passed under section 128 or section 130 has enhanced any penalty or fine in lieu of confiscation or has confiscated goods of greater value: and (b) in any other case, unless the person affected by the proposed order has been given notice to show cause against it, within one year from the date of the order sought to be annulled or modified (5) Where the Central Government is of opinion that any duty of customs has not been levied or has been short-lieved, no order levying or enhancing the duty shall be made under this section, unless the person affected by the proposed order is given notice to show cause against it within the time-limit specified in section 28. Sub-section (3) of this section enables the Central Government to annul or modify any order passed under section 128 or 130. The order passed under section 128 is on an appeal by any aggrieved person to the Appellate Collector of Customs where the order challenged is that of an officer of customs below the rank of a Collector of Customs and on appeal to the Board where the decision challenged is that of a Collector of Customs. The order under section 130 is the revisional order of the Board. Sub-section (3) makes any order passed under section 128 or 130 revisable suo motu and in exercise of such revisional power the order could be annulled or modified. Sub-section (5) deals with cases where the Central Government is of opinion that any duty of customs has not been levied or has been short-levied. In such a case no order levying or enhancing the duty is to be made under section 131 unless the person affected by the proposed order is given notice to show cause within the period specified in section 28. That period is agreed to be a period of 6 months so far as the facts of this case are concerned and it is also agreed between parties that the said 6 months had expired when proceedings culminating in Ext. P-6 order were taken. That period is agreed to be a period of 6 months so far as the facts of this case are concerned and it is also agreed between parties that the said 6 months had expired when proceedings culminating in Ext. P-6 order were taken. Therefore if section 131 (5) applies to the case, then, Ext. P-12 would be unwarranted as the proceedings resulting in Ext. P-12 were taken out of time. 3. The contention of Sri Prabhakaran, learned Pleader for the Central Government is that sub-section (5) is independent of sub-section (3) of section 131 and therefore the period prescribed in sub-section (5) will not apply to a case of action taken under sub-section (3). This plea calls for a close examination of the provisions of section 131. Sub-section (5) refers to cases where the Central Government is of opinion that any duty of customs has not been levied or has been short-levied and the necessity of an order levying or enhancing the duty is felt. It is not as if sub-section (5) does confer a power to order levying or enhancement of duty. That sub-section only provides for a restriction as to time within which action could be commenced by issue of notice to show cause. Therefore we have to examine the other sub-sections of section 131 to find the provision which enables such levy or enhancement to be made. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 131 deal with cases of applications by aggrieved persons to the Central Government and therefore evidently section 131 (5) has ho application to these sub-sections. Sub-section (4) deals with confiscation of goods. That too is inapplicable so far as section 131 (5) is concerned. Therefore the only sub-section which enables the levy or enhancement to be made in cases where duty of customs is not levied or short-levied is sub-section (3) of section 131. I fail to appreciate the contention that where the Appellate Collector of Customs cancels the levy of duty in appeal but the Central Government is of opinion that it ought not to have been so cancelled and the order of levy by the Assistant Collector of Customs must be restored, it is not a case either of short-levy or non-levy. I fail to appreciate the contention that where the Appellate Collector of Customs cancels the levy of duty in appeal but the Central Government is of opinion that it ought not to have been so cancelled and the order of levy by the Assistant Collector of Customs must be restored, it is not a case either of short-levy or non-levy. When the Appellate Collector of Customs holds that the levy was not validly made and that view is, according to the Central Government, wrong, proposal would then be to levy duty where there was no levy previously the levy having been cancelled. That would be a case where action can be taken under sub-section (3) when an appellate authority has allowed the appeal. Sub-section (5) would also apply to such a case though sub-section (5) need not apply to all cases to which sub-section (3) applies. That is because sub-section (3) may envisage cases not only of orders in appeal and revision resulting in non-levy and short-levey but also several other matters and to these subsection (5) will have no application and in such cases if revision is taken up under sub-section (3) period under subsection (5) will not be applicable. Whatever that be so far as the case before me is concerned it is sufficient to state that there was no reason to exclude the application of sub-section (5) merely because action has been taken by the Central Government under sub-section (3). To such action the period specified in sub-section (5) applies in case the conditions of that section have been satisfied. They are so satisfied in this case, for, according to the Central Government, the Appellate Collector of Customs was not correct in holding that the countervailing duty was not payable, therefore the duty had not been levied and such duty had to be levied by an order passed by it. That is what the Central Government purported to do by Ext. P-12. Since that has been done out of time it is without jurisdiction. Ext. P-12 order is quashed. It is not therefore necessary to go into the other masters raised. The Original Petition is allowed No costs.