9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 600X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istant Commissioner had initially rejected rebate claims preferred by the First Respondent in the amount of Rs. 13.57 lakhs. In appeal, the Commissioner remanded the proceedings back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration, after complying with the principles of natural justice. The First Respondent challenged that order of remand before the revisional authority. By the order impugned in these proceedings, the revisional authority has come to the conclusion that the First Respondent is entitled to claim rebate. The revisional application has been allowed. The Union of India has impugned that order. 2. The First Respondent is a merchant exporter. The manufacturer of the goods in question was Radha Dyeing and Printing Mills. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the personal hearing. Accordingly, the claim for the grant of rebate was disallowed. 5. In appeal, it was argued by the First Respondent that the claim for the grant of rebate had been wrongfully rejected without ascertaining the role that was played by the First Respondent. According to the First Respondent, its claim was rejected on the basis of an alleged fraud or misrepresentation by the manufacturer or its supplier. It was urged that action for the availment of Cenvat Credit on a wrongful basis could be taken against the manufacturer, but not against the First Respondent in the absence of material to indicate an act of abetment by the First Respondent. 6. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the manufacturer, Radha Dye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o show any mutuality of interest, financial control or flow back of funds. In taking this view, the revisional authority relied upon its decision in the case of Shyam International decided on 18 May 2007. 8. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has taken serious exception to the manner in which the revisional authority has proceeded in the case. Before we deal with the other submissions which have been urged before the Court we are inclined to accept the submission that the entire approach of the revisional authority has been misconceived. The revisional authority has transgressed the settled limitations on the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 35EE. The First Respondent neither appeared before the Assista ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h a finding of fact, for the first time, in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, particularly having regard to the background of the case which has already been noted earlier. 9. What we have observed above assumes some significance having regard to the nature of the submissions which have been urged before the Court by Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India. Counsel has adverted to the fact that a Show Cause Notice had been issued to Radha Dyeing and Printing Mills on 24 April 2008. The show cause notice inter alia contained an allegation that the transactions which had been put into place, were made to camouflage dubious transactions undertaken in collusion with various groups of suppliers. Alert circulars were is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the well settled principles. The Court under Article 226 would interfere where, as in this case, there has been a manifest error or misdirection on the part of a quasi judicial authority in exercising its jurisdiction. The revisional authority in the present case was called upon to exercise its jurisdiction against an order of remand passed by the Appellate Authority The order of remand was with a view to enable the First Respondent to have an adequate opportunity to substantiate its case for the grant of rebate, despite the fact that the adjudicating authority had denied the rebate on the ground that Cenvat credit had been wrongfully availed of on the basis of documents which were fraudulently obtained from Units which were found to be n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assistant Commissioner (Rebate), Central Excise-I. 12. During the course of the hearing, the Court has been informed that after the revisional authority had passed the impugned order dated 10 July 2009, allowing the application of the First Respondent for the grant of rebate, a Writ Petition was filed in this Court (Writ Petition 2114 of 2010) on 17 March 2010, seeking enforcement of the order of the revisional authority and the grant of rebate in the amount of Rs. 13,57,200/-. The Department has, in the present petition as amended, averred that during the pendency of the petition, the First Respondent was paid an amount of Rs. 13,57,200/- by a cheque dated 26 March 2010, following which the Petition was withdrawn. In amended paragr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
