IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRI T PETI TI ON No.13504 of 2009 DATE OF ORDER: 19.01.2026 Between :

M/s. Balaji Industrial and Agricultural Castings, 16 IDA, Balanagar, Hyderabad – 500 037, Rep. by its partner M. Bhuvaneshwari, W/o. M.Sreekanth.

…Petitioner AND The Government of India, Ministry of Finance & Company Affairs, Department of Revenue, 14, Hudco Vishala Building, B-Wing, 6^th Floor, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110066, Rep. by its Joint Secretary (Review) and 1 other.

…Respondents

ORDER:

(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr. Mohd. Anwar Ali, learned counsel representing

M/s. Mohan Vinod Associates for the petitioner; and Ms. Pravalika

Goud, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Dominic

Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC for respondent No.2.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the Order No.137/09-CX, dated 03.06.2009, passed by respondent No.1.

3. Vide the said impugned order, respondent No.1 / Revisional Authority has affirmed the Order-in-Appeal No.12/2007(H-IV)(D), dated 29.08.2007, passed by the Commissioner of Customs &

Central Excise (Appeals).

4. The point for consideration is ‘whether the petitioner would be entitled for rebate of duty for the exports made to other countries other than Nepal and Bhutan in terms of the notification No.19/2004-CE (NT), dated 06.09.2006?’

5. The respondent No.2 / Assessing Officer, at the first instance, vide order dated 18.09.2006 had accepted the contention of the petitioner so far as treating the export made by the petitioner to be one which would be accessible to rebate as per the notification No.19/2004-CE (NT), dated 06.09.2006. The order passed by the Assessing Officer was subjected to challenge before the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) by way of Order-in-Appeal No.12/2007(H-IV)(D). The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) found that the petitioner, in fact, had exported certain equipments from India to Zambia and had received certain job work for digging of bore wells. The equipments exported were also in connection with the accomplishments of job work given to the petitioner.

6. The petitioner claimed for refund vide application dated 10.04.2006 and the same was processed by the Assessing Officer by issuing a notice on 05.07.2006. The petitioner replied to the said notice on 19.07.2006. Thereafter, considering the submissions put forth on either side, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 18.09.2006 allowed the claim of the petitioner, which was set aside by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals).

7. The grounds for setting aside the order dated 18.09.2006, was that the notification No.19/2004-CE (NT) itself very specifically mentioned that the rebate would be eligible only for those exporters who meet the conditions, limitations, and procedures specified in the said notification. The notification had categorically spelt out certain conditions and limitations and also laid down the procedures under which such rebate would be claimed. The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) found that the petitioner was not in a position to meet the conditions and limitations at the first instance and also has not complied with the procedures spelt out in notification No.19/2004-CE (NT). Thus, allowing the appeal of the Revenue, the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) set aside the Order-in-Original No.32/2006-07-R.

8. It was this order which has been subjected to challenge by the petitioner before the Revisional Authority by way of a revision. The Revisional Authority also finding force in the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) found that the petitioner, in fact, has not followed the provisions of notification No.19/2004-CE (NT). Furthe