Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 18544
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.SARAVANAN, J
M/s.Glovis India Private Ltd – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise (Outer) – Respondent
W.P.No.21188 of 2022 | W.M.P.No.20185 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.J.V.Niranjan
For the Respondents: Mr.A.P.Srinivas Senior Standing Counsel
The court emphasized the necessity of merit-based review and re-evaluation of evidence in tax rebate claims.
Headnote:This case concerns a challenge to an Order-in-Original filed by the petitioner under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which rejected the petitioner’s rebate claim on documentary grounds. The court found that the petitioner had previously been assured by a directive for meritorious consideration regarding the claims, and thus mandated the respondents to reconsider the evidence presented and pass a new order based on merit. A further opportunity was granted to the petitioner for the submission of additional documents, concluding that the respondents should scrutinize the rebate claims and issue appropriate orders within a specified timeframe.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to rebate claim on document submission (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding procedural compliance (Para 5) |
| 3. court mandates re-evaluation of claims (Para 6) |
| 4. final ruling on the writ petition (Para 7 , 8) |
ORDER
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned Order-in-Original which has been passed pursuant to Show Cause notices issued to the petitioner seeking to reject the rebate claim filed by the petitioner under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with relevant notification on the ground that the petitioner has not filed certain documents as tabulated in Paragraph 6.3 of the impugned Order-in-
Original.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue has attained finality in as much as the activity undertaken by the petitioner has been held to be a manufacturing activity by CESTAT vide its Final Order No.40787/2017 dated 15.05.2017 in petitioner's own appeal in Appeal No.E/40619/2013 before CESTAT.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this Court had also earlier directed the respondents vide its order dated 12.01.2022 in W.P.No.9705 of 2021 to pass orders on merits in respect of the 12 Show Cause Notices which culminated in the impugned order. It is submitted that despite an order of this Court dated 12.01.2022 in W.P.No.9705 of 2021, the impugned order has been passed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the documents that are required for substantiate the rebate claim were filed on various dates under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 along with the rebate claims and therefore the impugned order has been erroneously passed stating that the petitioner has not filed some of the documents mentioned in Paragraph No.10 of the impugned order and therefore the impugned order is liable to be quashed with a consequential direction to the respondents to sanction the rebate claim.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents.
6. Even if the documents were filed and were not considered by the respondents, Court can only direct the respondents to re-examine those documents and pass fresh order. On the other hand, it is the categorical stand of the respondents/revenue that the petitioner has not filed some of the documents that are required for sanctioning the rebate claim filed by the petitioner on various dates. The petitioner can be given on more chance to file the documents and explain the case. Hence, the case is to remitted back to the respondents to pass a fresh orders on merits afresh. The petitioner is directed to produce all the copies of the documents mentioned in Paragraph 6.3 of the impugned order.
7. The impugned order which stands quashed shall be treated as addendum to the Show Cause Notices issued to the petitioner to reply with the same. Pending Show Cause Notices shall also be considered and disposed on merits. The respondents shall scrutinise the rebate claims and pass appropriate orders either allow or reject the rebate claim only on merits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. This Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
