TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riff. The petitioners used to get benefit of rebate on exports made by them. That benefit was initially granted by Circular dated 8-12-2006. Subsequently, Notification dated 17-9-2008 indicated that benefit of rebate would not be available after 8-12-2006 and later on by Finance Act, 2008, the benefit of rebate was made available only upto 7-12-2006. The petitioners' claim for rebate was denied by the Order-in-Original No. 1330 to 1331/R/AC/2007, dated 21-8-2007 and Order-in-Original No. 13/AC/2006, dated 28-2-2007. 3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), who by his orders in Appeal No. 373/2007/Commr(A)/Raj & 271/2007/Commr(A)/Raj and order in Appeal No. 271/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Nos. 2/2009 to 259 of 2009 before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide his order dated 3-1-2009 set aside orders passed in 258 Rebate claim matters and allowed all these appeals. 6. Aggrieved by this action on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioners have approached this Court making following prayers :- A.That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, calling for the records and proceedings of the case, and after going into the legality, validity and propriety thereof, to quash and set aside the impugned order communicated to the petitioners vide letter dated 22-8-2008 and 31-10-2008 issued by the Section Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xure "R" hereto); and (ii) to stay the operation of the impugned order communicated to the petitioners vide letters dated 22-8-2008 and 31-10-2008 issued by the Section Officer (RA) (Annexure - "J" and Annexure "O" hereto); E. Interim and ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayers Clause (c) and (d); F. For cost of the petition and orders thereon. 7. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vikram Nankani appearing with Mr. Hardik Modh for the petitioners and learned Assistant Solicitor General Mr. P.S. Champaneri for the respondent authorities. 8. It is contended by learned advocate Mr. Nankani that the department on one hand persuaded the petitioners to withdraw their revision applications assuring grant of rebate benefit and once those re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... point of time, the said orders were challenged in appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Rajkot who by order dated 9-1-2009 passed the order in appeal. The said appeals were preferred by Assistant Commissioner, Gandhidham who had himself passed the orders granting benefit of rebate. In that order, the Commissioner (Appeals) made the observation regarding permitting conditional withdrawal of revisions and ultimately, set aside the orders of the lower authority sanctioning rebate in respect of the petitioners' claim. 12. Having regard to the facts of the case, we are at loss to understand as to how the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise himself could have challenged his own orders in appeal before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect of the petitioners is that the petitioners are not able to pursue the remedy that they had resorted to by preferring revision applications to challenge the order of the lower authority and Commissioner (Appeals), nor do they get the benefit of rebate in hope of which they had withdrawn the revision applications. In this set of circumstances, the revision applications at least deserve to be restored. 15. We, therefore, dispose of these petitions by setting aside the communication dated 31-10-2008 from the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, refusing reinstatement of the revision applications of the petitioners and restore Revision Applications No. 195/100/08-RA, 195/03/08-RA. 195/04/08-RA'. and also set aside the order dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|