9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 shall have to be applied and applicable. Decided against the Petitioner. - W. P. (T) No. 5551 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 8-12-2022 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH And HON BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner : M/s Ranjit Mahatani, N.K. Pasari, Sidhi Jalan, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The writ petition was preferred for the following relief: a. For issuance of a writ and / or order and / or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for all the papers and proceedings by the Respondents pertainin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Excise Duty paid on goods exported and for which claim was filed under Notification No. 19/2004 -Central Excise (NT) dated 06.09.2004 read with Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002; e. For a declaration and/or order in the nature of declaration that upon a true and proper construct, the Notification No. 18/2016- Central Excise (NT) dated 01.03.2016 amending the Notification No. 19/2004-Central Excise (NT) dated 06.09.2004, so as introduce a time-bar in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, has a prospective effect for exports after 01.03.2006 and will not be applicable to exports and rebate claims filed for exports prior to 01.03.2016; f. For ad-interim reliefs in terms of the prayers above; g. Costs o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed to the petitioner to file reply, if so advised. List the case after four weeks. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly brought to the notice of this Court the latest decision rendered by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 8717 of 2022 vide judgment dated 29.11.2022 in the case of Sansera Engineering Limited Vrs. Deputy Commissioner, Large Tax Payer Unit, Bengaluru where the very issue has been set at rest. 5. The question posed for determination is framed at para 6 of the judgment, which reads as under: 6. We have heard Shri Arvind P. Datar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Siddhant Kohli, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue at length. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
