9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals) Customs and Central Excise Division, Moradabad. The said appeal has been allowed and the order in the appeal has been set aside. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for refund of amount. No action is being taken by the department, the present writ petition has been filed. Held that:- Mere pendency of revision before the C.G. at the instance of the department, is of no consequence as held by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Limited, [1991 (9) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. Therefore refund amounting to ₹ 1,37,833/- alongwith interest has been made out. The petitioner shall be entitled to get interest after expiry of period of three months from the date of appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty was denied by the department and the matter was carried in revision before the Central Government. The Central Government by its order dated 14.6.2006 allowed the revision filed by the petitioner and held that the petitioner/applicants are eligible for rebate of Central Excise duty paid on the clearance of the impugned goods. The matter was remanded back to the original authority for sanctioning rebate of central excise duty to the applicants/petitioner as discussed in the order. After remand, the department again rejected the claim of the petitioner by its order dated 31.3.2007. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs and Central Excise Division, Moradabad. The said appeal has been allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner has failed to file reply of the revision. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that in the first round of litigation, the petitioners were successful up to the stage of central government . The revision filed by the petitioner was allowed by the order dated 14.6.2006. The relevant paragraph of the said order , for the sake of convenience, is reproduced below. "From the facts mentioned above, it is clear that export of Central Excise duty paid goods is not in dispute. The procedure and condition of the rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is also complied with by the applicants. Hence the applicants are eligible for rebate of Central Excuse duty paid on clearan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rwise in order, and has rejected the rebate on the sole ground that the rebate of duty paid out of credit taken on inputs received from units located in the area availing area based exemption under notfn. 32/99 cannot be allowed as the supplier already gets refund of the said duty. In this regard I find that the CBEC vide circular no. 209/11/2005-CX-6 dated 8.12.2006 has clearly clearly specified that such rebate is not deniable. I also see that the same adjudicating authority has himself allowed another rebate claim of the appellant vide order dated 12.4.2007 under the same circumstances by following the guidelines given in the said circular. Therefore, I do not find any reason for disallowing the present claim. In this regard I agree with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not acceptable to the department, in itself an objectionable pharase and is the subject matter of an appeal, can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation is suspended by the competent court. For the sake of convenience, para-6 of the judgment is reproduced below. "Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that the officers were not actuated by any mala fides in passing the impugned orders. They perhaps genuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was not tenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenue would suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that we are not concerned here with the correctness or otherwise of their conclusion or of an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chaos in administration of the tax laws." Sri Bharatji Agarwal, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not obtain any instructions and proceeded to the hearing of the writ petition as if the revision is pending consideration before the Central Government. Sri BKS Rabhuvansi, counsel for the respondent also submits that he has received no instructions from the department informing him that revision has been decided by the Central Government. We proceeded to hear the matter as if revision is still pending before the Central Government. There is no dispute that there is no interim or stay order in the revision which is said to be pending before the Central Government. Section 11-B of the Act provides for refund of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
