TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 982X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order of Revisional Authority (Govt. of India), is without any substance and the same is, thus, liable to be dismissed. - Writ Petition No. 519 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 7-7-2010 - V. C. Daga, S. J. Kathawalla, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. J. B. Mishra For the Respondent : Mr. F. Razak a/w Mr. Nitin Dhumal ORDER P. C. 1. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused Writ Petition. 2. This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 22.1.2007 passed by the Joint Secretary to Government of India (Appellate Authority) under section 35 EE of the Central excise Act, 1944 (the Act) confirming the Order in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt No. 2 herein) contending that the CENVAT credit, reversed at the time of export of Capital Goods, could not have been treated as payment of duty so as to enable the exporter to claim rebate, apart from the fact that the export of the machine was not from the factory of manufacturer or its warehouse. The said revision preferred by the Revenue was rejected by the Revisional Authority relying on Sub Rule 6 of Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and upheld rebate claims. 6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Revisional Authority, the Revenue has invoked Writ jurisdiction of this Court. Submissions: 7. Mr. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue raised sole contention that ARE 1 was not signed by the manuf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods as per ARE 1. He submits that, it is no doubt true that, ARE 1 ought to have been signed by the manufacturer of the said machinery. However, this lapse can hardly be said to be so serious so as to deny the rebate claims. He submits that the said lapse is nothing but a technical lapse which needs to be ignored. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Suksha International Vs. Union of India, 1989 (39) ELT 503 (S.C.); wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court observed that interpretation unduly restricting the scope of beneficial provision should be avoided so that it may not take away with one hand what the policy gives with the other. He also pressed into service another judgment of the Apex Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
