IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment established the need for strict compliance with exemption or concession provisions and highlighted the applicability of central excise duty on waste/scraps.

JUDGMENT

Dharmesh Sharma, J.

1. The petitioner invokes the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ challenging the impugned order dated 27 September 2019 passed by the Revisionary Authority, Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi [Revisionary Authority], whereby the claim for refund of duty paid on inputs for executing the export obligations under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 [CER] read with notification No. 41/2001-CE (NT) dated 26 June 2001 was declined.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. The petitioner, having its registered office in Delhi, is engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of S.S. Utensils etc. and it was having Central Excise Registration No. AAOPJ7853NXM001. It is stated that certain exports obligations were duly undertaken during the period 2003-2004 for which the petitioner filed six separate Rebate Claims in the year 2004 pertaining to the period from September 2003 to March 2004, thereby seeking rebate of duty amounting to a total of Rs. 97,71,926/- that was claimed to have been paid on the inputs used in the manufacturing of the end product. It is stated that the Rebate Claims were lodged in terms of Rule 18 of the CER and in terms of Notification No. 41/2001 dated 26 June 2001. All the relevant documents were submitted with the respondent except that a request was also made by the petitioner to condone the procedural lapse of filing A.R.E. 1 instead of A.R.E. 2 besides submitting a request for fixation of the input-output norms in terms applicable during the export period in terms of letter from the Office of Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise dated 18 March 2004 [C.No.V(87)18/REF/IO/PJS/D-I/2003].

3. To cut the long story short, six Orders-in-Original dated 30 July 2008 were passed separately by the Adjudicating Authority, thereby granting total refund amounting to Rs.49,15,971/-. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal) on 06 January 2009 which was dismissed in limine vide order dated 29 September 2009 primarily for the same being time barred as it was claimed by the Department that the copy of the impugned six orders in original had been supplied to the authorised representative of the petitioner on 21 August 2008. The revision application filed by the petitioner before Revisionary Authority was allowed vide order dated 30 August 2011, thereby setting aside the orders in Appeal dated 29 September 2009 and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeal) with a direction to decide the case afresh on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

4. It is stated by the petitioner that he moved an application dated 10 January 2012 before the Commissioner (Appeal) submitting, inter alia, if the copies of the six orders-in-original were dispatched on 30 July 2008 by post, there was no occasion to hand over physical copies of the orders on 21 August 2008, but the application was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeal) vide order dated 29 October 2012, whereby again holding that there was inordinate delay of 139 days in the filing of the appeal, thus, rendering it time barred, and hence, no findings on merits were warranted. The petitioner then approached the Revisionary Authority, which vide order dated 04 December 2014 allowed the Revision, thereby setting aside the order dated 29 October 2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeal), but again the Commissioner (Appeal) proceeded to deal with the issue of limitation and passed orders dated 03 February 2016 dismissing the appeal, which was then challenged before the Revisionary Authority on 18 March 2016. The revision application came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 27 September 2019, assigning the following reasons:

"4. The issue of time bar raised by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has been s