The court emphasized the need to consider the rebate claim under Rule 18 of CE Rules and the petitioner's claim for rebate on duty paid on excisable material used for export.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning the order dated 06.08.2018 (Order no.517/18-CX and Order no.512-516/18-CX) passed by the Government of India, whereby the revision applications filed by the petitioner under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereafter the `CE Act') were rejected.

2. The petitioner had preferred Revision Applications against the Orders-in-Appeal (five in numbers) dated 28.07.2014 rejecting the petitioner's claim for refund and rebate of tax suffered on inputs used for export of goods.

3. The petitioner claims that the first batch of refund claims related to the period 2012-14. The petitioner had sought refund of Rs.17,37,263 on 20.04.2012; Rs.15,66,920/- on 10.12.2012; Rs.10,04,897 on 17.12.2013; Rs.7,95,226/- on 17.12.2013; Rs.5,71,207/- on 07.01.2014 and Rs.4,00,858/- on 07.01.2014. The petitioner contends that it had filed the aforementioned applications seeking refund of taxes suffered on inputs under the mistaken belief that the same were available under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (hereafter the `CC Rules'). The petitioner claims that it was not entitled to refund under Rule 5 of the CC Rules but was entitled to claim rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 Act (hereafter the `CE Rules'). The petitioner also claims that it had submitted necessary intimations for claiming such rebate on 30.05.2011 and 22.12.2014, which was prior to commencing export of goods.

4. By an order dated 19.03.2014, the concerned authority rejected the petitioner's claim on the ground that the goods were manufactured in the State of Uttarakhand, where certain exemptions were available and therefore, no refund could be claimed under Rule 5 of the CC Rules. The petitioner is essentially aggrieved as the refund sanctioning authority did not consider whether the petitioner was entitled to any rebate under Rule 18 of the CE Rules read with Notification no.21/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004. The rebate sought under the five applications were for a sum of Rs.13,14,845/-; Rs.1,80,920/-; Rs.5,74,109/-; Rs.5,44,536/- and Rs.8,01,215/-.

5. In the meantime, on 28.07.2014, the petitioner also filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) (hereafter Appellate Authority') against the orders rejecting the applications for refund under Rule 5 of the CC Rules (the first batch of petitions). The petitioner states that in its appeal, it claimed benefit of Rule 18 of the CE Rules, however, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. The order rejecting the appeal is not on record. However, it is not disputed that the petitioner's appeal was rejected without considering the applicability of Rule 18 of the CE Rules.

6. The petitioner filed a Revision Application impugning the order dated 28.07.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority before the Central Government, however, the same was rejected by the impugned order dated 06.08.2018 (Order no.517/2018-CX). A plain reading of the said order also indicates that the Central Government had not considered the petitioner's plea that it was entitled to rebate under Rule 18 of the CE Rules.

7. The petitioner's application for refund was rejected solely on the ground that the Central Government did not have any jurisdiction to consider an issue regarding rejection of a refund under Rule 5 of the CC Rules.

8. The second batch of applications seeking rebate were rejected by the Adjudicating Authority in terms of various orders passed in the months of April and September, 2015. The Adjudicating Authority denied the petitioners prayer for rebate under Notification no.21/2004-CE(NT) on the ground that the goods were not exported on ARE-2 and the shipping bills reflected the petitioner's Bangalore address and not the factory address at Uttarakhand.

9. The petitioner filed appeals before the Appellate Authority, which were rejected by five separate orders (orders dated 23.10.2015, 23.1