TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 528X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nion, completely answers the issue at hand. Having regard furthermore, in part the Government was of the view that the notification was not retrospective and the consignment did qualify for rebate. In the present case as well, the petitioners were entitled to relief. It is therefore held that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The order of the appellate authority is restored. - Writ petition allowed - W.P.(C) 270/2015 - - - Dated:- 23-8-2016 - MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT MS. DEEPA SHARMA JJ. Petitioner Through: Dr.Ashutosh, Mr. S.S. Arora and Ms. Harsimran Kaur, Advocates Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjeev Narula, CGSC with Mr.Abhishek Ghai and Mr.Ajay Kalra, Advocates for UOI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on 02.07.2011 by substituting the definition carry bag could not have defeated the rebate claim on account of admitted exports that occurred between 07.06.2011 and 01.07.2011. In support of the submissions, learned counsel relied upon the revisional order of the Central Government IN RE: P.R. CHEMICALS 2014 (314) E.L.T. 942 (G.O.I.). The relevant portion of the said decision is as follows: 3.3 The party has claimed the rebate of duty under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 but the Condition (g) of this Notification reads as under :- That the rebate of duty paid on the excisable goods, export of which is prohibited under any law for the time being in f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k place and therefore any clarification issued subsequently would have no bearing and the party would not be able to escape from the statutory provisions of Plastic Waste (Management Handling) Rules, 2011, dated 4-2-2011. Any circular and subsequently issuance of a trade notice on the basis of the same only facilitates interpretational aspects but it does not mean that the provisions of the relevant Act were not in force as on that date. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 4.3 The Trade Notice No. 20/2011 of the Central Excise Commissionerate, Lucknow and the C.B.E. C. letter F. No. 528/69/2011-STO(TI), dated 30-8-2011 issued consequent to amendment of the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... low of consignments meant for exports should not be got interrupted. It was clearly stated in the said letter that ban ordered by Hon'ble Supreme Court or even by Ministry of Environment and Forests vide standing order, dated 4-2-2011 would not be applicable to cases and consignments for export. In pursuance to said clarification, clearance of said goods was allowed for export by Central Excise authorities. The Customs authorities at the port of export has also allowed export without any objection. 10.2 Respondent in his counter reply had stated that in case M/s. Pan Parag India Ltd., Kanpur, rebate of duty paid on similar goods, was allowed and no such objection has ever been raised and department is discriminating against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsistency and discipline are of far greater importance than winning or losing court proceedings. In view of said principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the instructions issued by Chief Commissioner, Lucknow were rightly followed by departmental Central Excise officers. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the definitions of export and prohibited goods under Section 2 (18) and 2 (33). It was urged that the loading of goods for export would be the relevant point of time which would be reckoned for the purpose of export. In support of this submission learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in 1985 (12) TMI 234 /1987 (28) E.L.T. 266 (Mad.)- Lucas TVS, Madras versus Assistant Collect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the context of notification issued under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Import/Export hand book, the court had noticed that the statue prescribes different points in time and various stages for the different purpose both in respect of customs and exports. After analysis of the various provisions of the Customs Act, the court pertinently observed : Section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962, therefore does not say that until and unless shipment crosses the international boarder, the notification imposing prohibition shall be attracted. 6. In this Court s opinion the view taken by the Central Government in P.R.Chemicals s case (supra) is the correct one. Instead in this case, the Central Government a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
