Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri A.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amit Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No. 3.

2. The parties have requested and agreed that this matter may be heard and decided finally at this stage since only a question of law has been raised regarding interpretation of notification dated 6.9.2004 and, hence, I proceed to hear and decided the matter finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court.

3. The petitioner is a Merchant Exporter. He claims to procure medicines from other manufacturer like, M/s Shifa Laboratories (P) Ltd. Noida for export of purchased goods at its end. He sought rebate for Rs. 3,97,003/-, Rs. 4,63,714/-, Rs. 3,37,184/- and Rs. 2,78,256/- by lodging his claims before Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division-I, Noida (hereinafter referred to as the “ACCE”) vide applications, received in the office of ACCE on 15.2.2005. The ACCE while processing aforesaid claims found that petitioner has not complied with the procedure prescribed in Notification No. 19/2004-C.E.(N.T.) dated 6.9.2004 issued under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules, 2002”) and hence issued show-cause notice to adduce evidence in support of claim, else his claim may be rejected under Section 11(B) of Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1944”) read with Rule 18 of Rules, 2002.

4. The petitioner admitted non-compliance of said procedure but contended that it was due to ignorance of said procedure on his part and since the goods have actually been exported, hence the procedural lapse on his part be condoned and claim for rebate be allowed.

5. The ACCE, however, rejected claim vide order dated 20.4.2007, whereagainst, petitioner preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), Noida, who allowed the same on technical grounds and remanded matter to ACCE vide order dated 29.11.2007 (issued on 5.12.2007). Aggrieved by this order of Commissioner (Appeals), petitioner filed revision before Government of India, who disposed of the same vide order dated 16.9.2010 holding that Commissioner (Appeals) himself should decide the matter on merits instead of remanding, and should examine whether admitted lapse on the part of petitioner in compliance of procedure prescribed for claiming rebate, could be condoned or omitted. Pursuant thereto, the Commissioner (Appeals) decided appeal afresh vide order dated 24.2.2011. It allowed the appeal holding that petitioner had submitted all relevant documents except ARE-I. He held that the procedure to file ARE-I was not followed which is only a procedural and technical infraction and is condonable in view of Tribunal’s decision in Home Care (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi, 2006(197) ELT 110 (Delhi). It also relied on an earlier decision of Government of India in a revision preferred by one M/s Harison Chemicals, 2006(200) ELT 171. The Department carried the matter again to Government of India by filing four revisions, which have now been allowed vide order dated 18.6.2013 (issued on 19.6.2013), served on petitioner on 30.6.2013 and it is this order which is impugned in this writ petition.

6. Sri A.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that respondent No. 1 has completely misdirected itself by holding that procedure with regard to filing of ARE-I was mandatory and it has also erred in law in distinguishing the decisions of Delhi Tribunal in Home Care (I) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and its own decision in M/s Harison Chemicals (supra). He vehemently contended that procedure is for the benefit of exporter so as not to deny him certain rebate which is admissible when goods have actually been exported and not to deny him rebate on technical view of non-observance of a procedural part, which itself does not mitigate the admitted position that the goods have already been exported.

7. Though in this writ petition vires of notification dated 6.9.2004 has also been challenged but Sri Mathur, did