IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12738 of 2024 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-

and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Sd/-

=============================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✔

=============================================

ASHLAND INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

=============================================

Appearance:

MS AMRITA M. THAKORE, ADVOCATE for MR BHAVESH B CHOKSHI(3109) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 MS HARDIKA VYAS(11450) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 =============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Date : 20/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1. RULE. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms.Hardika Vyas waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents.

2. Since the issue involved in the present writ petition is short, the same is taken up for hearing and is being decided by this judgment.

3. The petitioners have assailed the order dated 28.09.2023 passed by the respondent No.1. Further, a prayer is made for issuance of a direction to the respondents to sanction the rebate claim of Rs.1,29,92,156/- in terms of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (in short, “the Rules, 2002”).

BRIEF FACTS : -

4. To secure rebate benefits, as contemplated under Rule 18 of the Rules, 2002, the petitioner No.1 being a merchant- exporter, filed a claim before the office of the respondent No.3 for an amount of Rs.1,32,92,598/- on 29.12.2017 (the “Original Claim”). However, on the same day, the respondent No.3, vide letter bearing reference F.No.CGST/Anjar-Bhachau/REF-REB/17- 18 dated 29.12.2017 (the “Rejection Letter”), returned the application along with the accompanying documents.

5. The Rejection Letter merely mentions that the petitioner No.1 had failed to comply with the conditions and procedures specified in Paragraph No.3(b)(i) of Notification No.19/2004. Being uncertain about the alleged non-compliance and the basis of rejection, the petitioner No.1 re-submitted its claim on 26.06.2018 before the office of the respondent No.3 (the “Re- filed Claim”). In the interregnum, the Finance Team of the petitioner No.1 had relocated from its Mumbai office to Hyderabad. During the course of such relocation, the original and duplicate copies of the ARE-1 forms were inadvertently misplaced.

6. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 adjudicated the re-filed claim by passing an Order-in-Original bearing reference “Rebate Order No.05/Rebate/2018-19” dated 28.09.2018 partly in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, the Commissioner, CGST, Kachchh, Gandhidham formed an opinion that the Order-in-Original was not legal and proper and was liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the said Commissioner exercised the powers of review vested under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short, “the Act, 1944”) and passed a Review Order No.04/OIO/18-19 dated 26.12.2018, authorizing the incumbent Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Anjar–Bhachau Division, Gandhidham to prefer an appeal against the Order-in-Original. The appeal preferred by the Revenue was filed before the respondent No.2 and culminated in the issuance of the Order-in-Appeal bearing No.KCH-EXCUS-

000-APP-059-2020 dated 03.07.2020.

7. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Appeal, the petitioner No.1 preferred a Revision Application under Section 35EE of the Act, 1944, before the respondent No.1. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 passed the impugned order dated 28.09.2023 rejecting the Revision Application filed by the petitioner No.1.

Hence, the present writ petition.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS :-

8. Learned advocate Ms.Amrita Thakore, appearing for learned advocate Mr.Bhavesh Chokshi for the petitioners, at the outset, has submitted that the competent officer i.e. the Assistant Commissioner, Kachchh, Gandhidham, ought not to have returned the rebate claim filed