Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 25847
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA, MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT, JJ
M/S BLUE WHALE ENTERPRISES INDIA PVT. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7014 of 2022
AMAL PARESH DAVE(8961) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 MR PARESH M DAVE(260) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 MR CB GUPTA(1685) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
The Revisional Authority must apply the current Central Excise Rules when deciding rebate claims, not outdated regulations.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Central Excise Act - Section 11BB - Petition for quashing the order of the Revisional Authority regarding rebate claims - The Revisional Authority incorrectly applied the rescinded Central Excise Rules, 1944 instead of the applicable Central Excise Rules, 2001 and subsequent rules. (Paras 4.1, 6, 7)
(B) Legal principles - The Revisional Authority must base its decisions on the current applicable laws and rules, ensuring that the correct legal framework is applied to the facts of the case. (Paras 4.1, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners exported 21 consignments of Pan Masala and claimed rebates totaling Rs.67,73,865/-, which were rejected by the Deputy Commissioner and later by the Revisional Authority on grounds of procedural non-compliance. (Paras 3.1, 3.4, 3.6)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Revisional Authority's reliance on outdated rules was erroneous and directed a fresh consideration of the rebate claims under the correct legal framework. (Paras 6, 7)
Issues: The main issue was whether the Revisional Authority applied the correct legal framework in rejecting the rebate claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Revisional Authority must adhere to the current laws and rules applicable to the case, quashing the previous order for failing to do so.
Result: The impugned order dated 13.12.2021 is quashed and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration.
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Amal Paresh Dave for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr.C.B.Gupta for the respondents.
2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :
“(A) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside Order No.258/2021-CE dated 13.12.2021 (Annexure-"I") passed by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) with consequential relief and benefit of export benefits of rebate aggregating to Rs.67,73,865/- for the exports made by the Petitioner;
(B) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the Respondents herein to pay interest in the Petitioner's favour under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act on delayed rebate/refund of Rs.67,73,865/- for the period of 3 months after the date/s of rebate claim/s till actual payment of the rebate benefit;
(C) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay to the Petitioner benefit of rebate of Rs.67,73,865/- on terms and conditions that may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court;
(D) An ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of para 13(C) above may kindly be granted.
(E) Any other further relief that may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also please be granted.”
3.1. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners had exported 21 consignments of Pan Masala through Merchant Export on payment of excise duties aggregating to Rs.67,73,865/- and lodged the rebate claims for the same.
3.2. Two show-cause notices were issued on 02.11.2011 and 05.12.2011 by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise proposing to reject the rebate claims filed by the petitioners.
3.3. From December, 2011, the petitioners closed down the business operations at Jaipur but continued the business operations at Gandhinagar Unit, managed from Ahmedabad based Office and closure of the business at Jaipur was intimated to the Central Excise Authorities at Jaipur.
3.4. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise passed an adjudication order dated 04.07.2012 and rejected all 21 rebate claims on the basis of the objections and grounds raised in the show-cause notices.
3.5. Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred the Appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur who rejected the Appeals by order dated 06.04.2016.
3.6. The petitioners thereafter preferred Revision Applications before the Government of India, New Delhi in May, 2016. The Revisional Authority rejected the rebate claimed on the ground that self-sealing procedure for the export containers was followed by the petitioners though such procedure was not available to the petitioners and the chain of identity of goods dispatched by the petitioners to Merchant Exporter had been broken and consequently, the identity of the export goods was not established.
3.7. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred this petition.
4.1. Learned advocate Mr.Amal Dave for the petitioners submitted that the Revisional Authority while rejecting the Revision Applications filed by the petitioners has taken into consideration the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which are rescinded by the Central Excise Rules, 2001 and subsequent Rules. It was further submitted that the question before the Revisional Authority was with regard to non-admissibility of the rebate claims in view of the Condition Nos.2(e) and 2(h) of the Notification No.19/2004 dated 06.09.2004 as amended. It was submitted that by Central Excise Rules, 2001 and subsequent Rules, 2002, the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were superseded with effect from 1 st day of July, 2001. It was submitted that even the show-cause notices and the adjudication orders were also passed c
