9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, provide certain reliefs, with regard to the levy of central excise duty on raw materials. Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, provides for the grant of the rebate of duty paid on excisable goods which are exported and with regard to the duty paid on the raw materials used in the manufacture of the exported goods. Rule 19 of the Central excise Rules, 2002, permits clearance of excisable goods, under bond, without payment of duty. Accordingly, Rule 18 provides for the refund of the central excise duty already paid on raw materials or final products cleared for export. Rule 19 facilitates duty clearance of excisable raw materials and final products meant for export. As such, the petitioner company had been making rebate claims with the second respondent, in terms of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 4. It has been further stated that the petitioner had made a rebate claim, relating to its export, in view of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, before the second respondent. However, the respondents had been withholding the rebate amounts, due to the petitioner, by adjusting the same against the amounts said to be due f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bate on exports, is arbitrary and contrary to the relevant provisions of law. No notice had been given to the petitioner before such adjustments had been made. In fact the petitioner had filed 15 rebate claims, vide its letter, dated 13.2.2012, for a total rebate amount of Rs. 47,00,094/-, before the second respondent, along with the supporting documents. Instead of allowing the same, the second respondent had adjusted the substantial portion of the said amounts for the alleged central excise dues of the petitioner. In view of the appropriation of the amounts, by the second respondent, the stay petition filed by the petitioner in the appeal pending on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Chennai, in Appeal No.ST/217/2010, had become infructuous. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the adjustment of the amounts said to be due from the petitioner, as excise duty arrears, while the rebate claims made by the petitioner were pending and when the stay petitions in the appeals filed before the Tribunal were also pending adjudication, is arbitrary and illegal. The learned counsel appeari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such circumstances, this Court may be pleased to set aside the communication of the second respondent, dated 13.6.2012, and to direct the second respondent to consider the rebate claim of the petitioner, dated 13.2.2012, and to pass appropriate orders thereon. This Court may also be pleased to direct the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the appeal pending before it, in Appeal No.ST/217/2010, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period. 10. A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondents denying the averments and allegations made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It has been stated that the prayer in the writ petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner had filed a single writ petition challenging the orders-in-Original Nos.108 to 113 of 2012, dated 12.6.2012. It has been further stated that the petitioner is a manufacturer of `cotton lycra core spurn yarn , classified by the petitioner, as falling under Central Excise Tariff heading No.5205.90. According to the Revenue it is classifiable under Entry 5205.11/5606.00. 11. It has been further stated that, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner in compliance with the principles of natural justice. Even though the appeal filed by the petitioner had been numbered in the year, 2010, no steps had been taken by the petitioner to pursue the stay petition, by listing it for an early hearing of the same. Even if there are vacancies in the Tribunal in its South Zonal Bench at Chennai, it is always open to the petitioner to get the appeal, along with the stay petition, transferred and listed for hearing to another bench, for an early disposal. However, the petitioner has moved the present writ petition before this Court, without taking the necessary steps for an early disposal of the stay petition and the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 13. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available and on considering the decisions cited supra, it is noted that the appropriation of the amounts, to the extent of Rs. 18,32,782/-, towards the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
