9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 012 were not challenged before any higher authority, thus, the same had attained finality. This Court further observes that vide the order dated 02.11.2016 passed in [ 2016 (11) TMI 483 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] , this Hon ble Court had only quashed the order dated 16.11.2011, while the order dated 26.07.2011 and amended corrigendum 17.07.2012 were not even challenged, and therefore, the order dated 02.11.2016 as passed in the aforesaid writ petition is on a different footing and does not have any bearing on the present case. SION norms - HELD THAT:- This Court also observes that the petitioner itself has not contested the SION norms before the Appellate Authority - This Court further observes that once the petitioner has not raised any dispu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) By an appropriate writ or direction, the impugned order dated 30.09.2016 (Annexure-P/10) passed by the appellate authority may also be quashed. (iv) By an appropriate writ or direction impugned OIO No. 80-86/2012 dated 30.04.2012 (Annexure-P/6) may also be quashed. (v) it may kindly be directed that the amount interest thereon, already paid by the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned orders, be refunded to the petitioner with interest. (vi) Any other appropriate order, which this Hon ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed. (vii) Costs may kindly be awarded to the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereafter, on 17.07.2012, a corrigendum was issued, to the following effect: CORRIGENDUM Last three lines i.e. of para 8.2 of the above order may read as under: The ratio of consumption of materials on the manufacturing of export products may be worked out taking into account the wastage prescribed in the relevant SION norms CBEC Circular dated 29-05-1995 if the wastage shown by application is found on higher side. 2.2. Subsequently, the department raised a demand of Rs. 3,98,982/- vide order dated 02.05.2012; aggrieved from the said action, the petitioner filed a writ petition (D.B.C.W.P. No. 8059/2012) before this Hon ble Court, whereafter, the adjudicating authority issued the consequential order, therefore, the said writ petition was wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not justified in law. 3.2. It was also submitted that this Hon ble Court vide order dated 02.11.2016 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2004/2013 held that the department was not correct in imposing any condition while granting rebate of duty beyond the condition as prescribed under Rule 18 of the Rules, 2002, but the Revisional Authority held that the matter had attained finality by the earlier order dated 26.07.2011 inasmuch as the issue of SION was neither raised in the revision application nor was heard and adjudicated by the Revisional Authority. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the applicability of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned orders, which are justified in law. 6. Heard learned counsel of the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 7. This Court observes that the petitioner filed the aforementioned rebate claims for grant of rebate on duty paid on material used in manufacture of export goods, and the same was sanctioned. Thereafter, the department filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), and the same was dismissed on 03.02.2009. Subsequently, the department filed a revision application and the same was decided on 26.07.2011. 7.1. Subsequently, the department raised a demand of Rs. 3,98,982/-, aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition (D.B.C.W.P. No. 8059/2012) before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Writ Petition No. 2004/2013, this Hon ble Court had only quashed the order dated 16.11.2011, while the order dated 26.07.2011 and amended corrigendum 17.07.2012 were not even challenged, and therefore, the order dated 02.11.2016 as passed in the aforesaid writ petition is on a different footing and does not have any bearing on the present case. 9. This Court also observes that the petitioner itself has not contested the SION norms before the Appellate Authority, which has been recorded in the order dated 30.09.2016 by the Appellate Authority, while indicating that, I find that the appellant has not disputed these SION norms . This Court further observes that once the petitioner has not raised any dispute with regard to the SION norms befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
