The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in relation to rebate claims for excisable goods exported out of India.

D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.

1. Challenging the order dated 07.10.2015 passed in W.P. No. 9062 of 2015 of 2014 by a Writ Court of this High Court, this Writ Appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner/ appellant.

2. The short facts of the case are as follows:-

The appellant company, viz. M/s. Hyundai Motors India Ltd. is a manufacturer of cars which are cleared for home consumption as well as export to various countries by way of exports, without payment of duty under their Letter of Undertaking or on payment of prescribed duty. In the month of November, 2008, the appellant exported cars. However, it was noticed that 303 cars were subjected only to excise duty at 25% and the specific duty of Rs. 15,000/- per car was not levied in the excise invoice due to system error and thus, the ARE1 did not contain the said difference amount. Thereafter, the appellant fulfilled the payment of specific duty by way of debiting the CENVAT credit amount on 15.12.2008. Subsequently, the appellant filed rebate claim dated 27.11.2009 for refund of differential duty of excise amounting to Rs. 46,81,350/- paid by them on 15.12.2008 (at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per car with education cess and secondary and higher education cess) for export of 303 Nos. of i20 cars under 19 ARE-1s. On scrutiny of application and documents, it was noticed that in respect of 10 ARE-1s, in which 187 cars were exported, left India on 11.11.2008 and 15.11.2008 and the rebate claim was filed only on 27.11.2009 i.e. after one year of the relevant dates (dates of export) as per section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The revenue issued show cause notice under C. No. IV/10/76/2009 R.F. LTU (LTG 1) dated 22.1.2010 to the appellant company as to why a part of their claim of Rs. 28,89,150/- pertaining the aforesaid 10 ARE-1s should not be rejected as time barred in terms of section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Aggrieved by the show cause notice, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) that differential additional excise duty of Rs.15,000/- per car was not debited for a particular variant at the time of export and on knowing the fact, the differential additional duty was debited in the Cenvat account on 15.12.2008 i.e. after the cars were exported (viz. 11.11.2008 and 15.11.2008) and that the date of payment should be reckoned as the relevant date for the rebate claim filed on 27.11.2009. Considering the case of the appellant and after perusing the materials on record, the Commissioner (Appeals), by order dated 23.2.2011, rejected the appeal in Appeal No. 16 of 2011, holding that the adjudicating authority was right in rejecting part of the claim as time barred as the relevant date is date of export as provided u/s. 11B(B)(a)(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Against this order, the appellant filed a revision application before the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The revisionary authority vide Order No. 378/14-cx dated 11.12.2014 held that original and the appellate authority has rightly rejected the rebate claim which was filed beyond the stipulated one year period. Challenging the aforesaid order, the appellant company filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 9062 of 2015 before this High Court to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus seeking to quash Order No. 378/14-cx dated 11.12.2014 passed by the revisionary authority and to direct the 2nd respondent to refund the balance rebate claim of Rs. 28,89,150/- to the appellant. By order dated 07.10.2015, the Writ Court dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the revenue authorities were right in rejecting the claim of the appellant, after hearing the parties and perusing the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent in the Writ Petition. The aforesaid order is impugned in the instant appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the order of the learned Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition is arbitrary an