2009 (4) TMI 171 - HC - Central Excise

Writ petition alternative remedy - Petitioner has sought for quashing of Annexure-F dated 2-4-2009 and a further direction to restrain the respondents from resorting to recovery for the realisation of the interest part on the rebate amount which the petitioner had claimed earlier and had been granted to him by the original authority, but denied later by the appellate authority. held that - While it may be true that the revisional authority has not been able to consider the application said to have been filed by the petitioner seeking for stay of recovery etc; I do not find this is a fit matter to entertain the petition of this nature under Article 227 of the Constitution, particularly if the authorities propose to realise the interest part on the rebate, which had been wrongly claimed and utilised by the petitioner. - Be that as it may, in a matter of this nature where no illegality can be attributed to the proposed action of the respondent, it cannot be interfered with. - It is open to the petitioner to move the revisional authority if the revisional authority has been made active on being constituted by the Central Government or even move the higher authorities in the Excise Department, like the Commissioner for seeking relief to stall the recovery during the pendency of the revision petition of the petitioner. petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim for rebate on duty as goods manufactured and exported.
2. Denial of rebate by appellate authority.
3. Recovery of interest on the rebate amount.
4. Quashing of Annexure-F dated 2-4-2009.
5. Entitlement of the petitioner to claim rebate.
6. Recovery of interest deemed unreasonable.
7. Inactivity of the revisional authority.
8. Jurisdiction of the court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
9. Options available to the petitioner for seeking relief.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, an assessee under the Central Excise Act, claimed a rebate on duty for goods manufactured and exported, which was initially allowed but later denied by the appellate authority. The department sought to recover the rebate amount and proposed to recover interest on the rebate, leading to the filing of a writ petition by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner requested the quashing of Annexure-F dated 2-4-2009 and a direction to restrain the respondents from recovering the interest part on the denied rebate amount. The petitioner argued that the appellate authority's decision was erroneous and that the recovery of interest was unreasonable, especially during the pendency of the revision petition.

3. The court acknowledged the petitioner's contentions but found that the matter was not suitable for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. The court noted that no illegality could be attributed to the department's proposed actions, including the recovery of interest on the disputed rebate amount.

4. The court suggested that the petitioner could approach the revisional authority once it became active or seek relief from higher authorities in the Excise Department, such as the Commissioner, to halt the recovery process during the revision petition's pendency.

5. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that it was not a fit matter for interference under Article 227. The petitioner was advised to explore other available options for seeking relief, without prejudice to their rights.