9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as on inputs used in such goods simultaneously, which is evident from the language used in Rule 18 of the said Rules itself. - the petitioner was not entitled to rebate of duty paid on raw materials after it had already been granted rebate in respect of duty paid on finished products. - 3899/2010 - - - Dated:- 2-6-2010 - Advocates who appeared in this case:- For the Petitioner: Mr M. P. Devnath with Mr Abhishek Anand For the Respondent: Mr B. V. Niren with Ms Akriti Gandotra for R-1.Mr Mukesh Anand with Mr Shailesh Tiwari for R-2 3. CORAM:- Hon'ble Mr Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed Hon'ble Mr Justice V.K. Jain BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) CM 7824/2010 Allowed subject to all just exceptions. WP(C) 3899 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s qua the duty paid on final products were allowed. The rebate claims which were denied amounted to Rs 26,11,788/- being the aggregated disallowance in respect of all the 15 claims. 3. Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Rules") reads as under:- "Rule 18. Rebate of duty. - Where any goods are exported the Central Government may, by notification, grant rebate of duty paid on such excisable goods or duty paid on materials used in the manufacture or processing of such goods and the rebate shall be subject to such conditions or limitations, if any, and fulfillment of such procedure, as may be specified in the notification. Explanation. - "Export" includes goods shipped as provision or stor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isable goods "or" on duty paid on materials used in the manufacturing or processing of such goods. 5. The Assistant Commissioner passed orders in respect of the rebate claims rejecting the rebate claims in respect of both raw materials as well as finished products. When the petitioner went in appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), he gave part relief to the petitioners in the sense that he allowed the rebate claim in respect of the duty paid on final products but rejected the claim in respect of the duty paid on raw materials. It is thereafter that the petitioner approached the Government of India under Section 35EE by way of revision. The impugned order has been passed in those revisions applications. 6. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot to grant rebate of duty paid on exported goods as well as on inputs used in such goods simultaneously, which is evident from the language used in Rule 18 of the said Rules itself. 7. The Government of India, in exercising its revisional power under Section 35EE, has correctly followed the decision of the Bombay High Court in coming to the view that the petitioner was not entitled to rebate of duty paid on raw materials after it had already been granted rebate in respect of duty paid on finished products. We agree with the view taken by the Bombay High Court and consequently, we see no fault in the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed. BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J V.K. JAIN, J JUNE 02, 2010 - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
