9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 964X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise Tariff Act, 1985. 3. The petitioners supplied the duty paid LSHF HSD (Low Sulphur High Flash High Speed Diesel) to foreign going vessel and following export under bond procedure inasmuch as filing of ARE-1, shipping bill, the submission of proof of export, etc. inadvertently. In other words, though the petitioners claim that they are entitled to rebate of duty in terms of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 inadvertently they filed documents which indicated that the goods were cleared without payment of export duty. In other words, the application for refund/rebate ought to have been processed in terms of Rule 18 but was erroneously treated as made under Rule 19 and rejected throughout. 4. An attempt is made before us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the producer or the manufacturer or the warehouse or any other premises, as may be approved by the Commissioner. In that event, Rule 18 could not have been invoked. However, Mr. Patil submits that the authorities were aware that Rule 18 was invoked by the petitioners and that is how they discussed the aspect of co-relation of the goods. In other words, the petitioner's claim for rebate has been rejected on the ground that the necessary co-relation could not be established. However, there are enough number of documents on record to establish such co-relation. Reliance is placed on the written submissions and even the communication addressed during the course of revisional proceedings. 6. Mr. Kantharia appearing for the department in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise Rules, 2002 occurred. The goods were duty paid and the goods carried the duty which has been paid and proof thereof was produced. According to the petitioners, from para 6 of the Revisional Order it is apparent that the application was treated as made under Rule 19. However, the authorities were aware that the goods were procured from BPCL on payment of duty and, therefore, rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Rules have been filed. Now, if the application has invoked Rule 18 and that is how the petitioners application has been treated, then, what we find is that the reasoning from para 8 onwards was not necessary. Then, the findings that the petitioners failed to establish that there is no co-relation with the duty paid goods procured fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to the public and Parliament having produced such document that they can be left out of consideration. If Rule 18 was invoked and that is how the impugned orders proceed, then, this material should have been referred to by the Revisional Authority. 9. As result of the above discussion, we quash and set aside both the orders impugned in these Writ Petitions and passed by the Revisional Authority namely Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) and direct that the Revision Applications filed by the petitioners shall be decided afresh on merits and in accordance with law after taking into account all the material supplied including the details of the co-relation statement, the documents referre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
