9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 127 - HC - Central ExciseRebate claim - applicability of SION norms in determining wastage for rebate claims - Rule 18 of the Rules, 2002 - department filed a revision application against sanctioning of the rebate - HELD THAT - The department passed the recovery order in question and the order dated 26.07.2011 and amended corrigendum dated 17.07.2012 were not challenged before any higher authority, thus, the same had attained finality. This Court further observes that vide the order dated 02.11.2016 passed in 2016 (11) TMI 483 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT , this Hon ble Court had only quashed the order dated 16.11.2011, while the order dated 26.07.2011 and amended corrigendum 17.07.2012 were not even challenged, and therefore, the order dated 02.11.2016 as passed in the aforesaid writ petition is on a different footing and does not have any bearing on the present case. SION norms - HELD THAT - This Court also observes that the petitioner itself has not contested the SION norms before the Appellate Authority - This Court further observes that once the petitioner has not raised any dispute with regard to the SION norms before the Appellate Authority, it cannot now raise any dispute in this regard in the present petition. This Court further observes that the Adjudicating Authority at the time of issuance of the recovery order has not rightly calculated the SION norms, and thus, thereafter, the Appellate Authority changed the above-said calculation and reduced the recovery amount, while making correct calculation as per the SION norms; the said order has been upheld by the Revisional Authority, vide the impugned order, which is justified in law - this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of SION norms in determining wastage for rebate claims. 2. Compliance with Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in granting rebates. 3. Validity of impugned orders based on statutory provisions and notifications. 4. Application of precedent law by Adjudicating, Appellate, and Revisional Authorities. 5. Finality of earlier orders and challenge to SION norms calculations. Analysis: Issue 1: Interpretation of SION norms in determining wastage for rebate claims The petitioner challenged the applicability of SION norms in determining wastage, arguing that actual wastage depends on various parameters and SION norms should not be applied when actual input-output ratio is declared and verified. The respondent contended that SION norms are based on statutory provisions and upheld by precedent law. The Court noted that the petitioner did not dispute SION norms before the Appellate Authority, precluding such challenge in the present petition. The Adjudicating Authority's incorrect calculation of SION norms was rectified by the Appellate Authority, which was upheld by the Revisional Authority in the impugned order. Issue 2: Compliance with Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in granting rebates The petitioner argued that the impugned orders contravened Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 by limiting rebate entitlement unlawfully. The respondent maintained that the orders were in line with statutory provisions allowing for conditions and limitations on rebate grants. The Court observed that the previous order had attained finality and the petitioner's failure to contest SION norms earlier precluded raising the issue in the present petition. The impugned orders were considered justified in law based on correct application of SION norms. Issue 3: Validity of impugned orders based on statutory provisions and notifications The respondent argued that the impugned orders were in accordance with statutory provisions, notifications, and instructions, including Circulars specifying conditions for rebate grants. Precedent law supporting the applicability of SION norms was cited. The Court found that the Adjudicating, Appellate, and Revisional Authorities correctly interpreted rules based on precedent law, justifying the impugned orders. Issue 4: Application of precedent law by Adjudicating, Appellate, and Revisional Authorities The Court noted that the Adjudicating Authority, Appellate Authority, and Revisional Authority applied precedent law from the Hon'ble Apex Court in passing the impugned orders. The authorities' interpretations were deemed lawful and in line with established legal principles. Issue 5: Finality of earlier orders and challenge to SION norms calculations The Court highlighted that previous orders, including the amended corrigendum, had attained finality as they were not challenged before higher authorities. The petitioner's failure to contest SION norms earlier barred raising the issue in the present petition. The correct calculation of SION norms by the Appellate Authority, upheld by the Revisional Authority, was considered legally justified. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition, finding no grounds to grant relief to the petitioner based on the factual matrix and legal analysis presented in the judgment.
|
