9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5653 to 15661/2021 : Mrs.Deepa Standing Counsel For the R2 in all W.Ps. : Mr.Ragavendren Standing Counsel COMMON ORDER By this common order, all these 13 Writ Petitions are being disposed of. 2. In these Writ Petitions, the petitioner has challenged the respective impugned orders passed by the first respondent as the Revisional Authority under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. By the impugned order, the first respondent has rejected the Revision Petitions filed by the petitioner against the respective Orders-In-Appeals dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioner against the respective Orders-In-Originals rejecting the rebate claims filed by the petitioner under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 15659/21 195/106/14 19-27 May 2012 23,07,633 23,07,633 12 15660/21 195/107/14 19-27 February, 2012 8,61,840 8,61,840 13 15661/21 195/108/14 19-27 December, 2011 8,10,610 8,10,610 Total 4,82,43,711 3,66,93,132 5. While the rebate claims filed by the petitioner were being considered by the Original Authority, the Department has initiated investigation and had collected approximately Rs. 7.53 Crores from the petitioner on 24.09.2012, 25.09.2013 and 25.10.2023. 6. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner rushed to this Court in W.P.(MD) No.2026 of 2013. By an order dated 08.11.2013, this Court has dismissed the said Writ Petition with the following observations:- "9. In view of the above, this wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rit appeal. When the writ appeal came up for admission on 27.02.2014, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent took notice and after hearing him, a Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ appeal, by an order dated 27.02.2014. 7. However, the respondent filed an application in Review Application (MD) No.61/2014 for a review of the order passed on 27.02.2014 in W.A.(MD) No. 339 of 2014. The review was allowed by us by a separate order passed on 26.04.2014, only on the short ground that the appeal of the appellant could not have been allowed at the admission stage, without sufficient opportunity to the respondents. Consequently, the writ appeal got re-opened and the counsel on both sides advanced arguments in the appeal." 9. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 29.11.2013 issued pursuant to the order dated 08.11.2013 passed by the leaned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No. 2026 of 2013. Thus, there were no other grounds to deny the rebate claims to the petitioner. 12. The further appeal of the Department before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dismissed vide order dated 05.03.2024 in SLP (Civil) Diary No.48923 of 2023 as there was enormous delay in filing the said appeal. 13. Thus, the issue relating to Cenvat Credit availed by the petitioner on "Stainless Steel Casting" and "Non-Alloyed Steel" stands confirmed in favour of the petitioner in view of the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) No.339 of 2014 on 30.04.2014 and in W.A.(MD) No.1151 of 2014 on 17.11.2022. Thu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
