2010 (2) TMI 564

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd substance in the petition and the petition is accordingly dismissed. - HC cannot exercise its equitable writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner and there are several disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into by this Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the petition and the petition is accordingly dismissed.
K.A. Puj and Rajesh H. Shukia, JJ. REPRESENTED BY: Shri Hardik P. Modh, for the Petitioner. None, for the Respondent. [Order per K.A. Puj. J. (Oral)]. - The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the respondent No. 2 on 29-12-2006 as well as 9-12-2009. The pe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... with a representation. Accordingly, this Court has permitted the petitioner to withdraw the said petition with a liberty to make representation which shall be considered in accordance with law. 4. After that order, the petitioner made a representation to the Joint Secretary on 8-8-2009 which was disposed of by the Sr. Technical Officer (RA) on 9-12-2009 stating therein that there is no provision under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to reconsider the earlier orders which have been passed. 5. At this stage, the petitioner has filed present petition before this Court. 6. The only ground raised by the petitioner in this petition is that letter dated 3-8-2005 written by the Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Surat to the De .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Joint Secretary also, there is no reference to such letter. The order passed by the Joint Secretary was challenged before this Court in Special Civil Application in 2008 and for the first time in 2009, the reference was made to this letter, on the basis of which the petition was sought to be withdrawn and accordingly, the said petition was with drawn. Since there are three decisions of the authorities below who have given concurrent findings of facts while rejecting the claim of the petitioner, the petitioner has not invited any order of this Court on the merits so far as the order dated 29-12-2006 is concerned. All the three orders are self speaking orders and detailed reasons are given for rejection of the rebate claim of the petitioner. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X