TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 1089X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies to consider, grant and sanction nine refund/rebate claims already forwarded by the petitioner. 2. Facts leading to the present Special Civil Application, in nutshell, are as under : 2.1 That the petitioner submitted nine separate applications seeking refund/rebate of duty on 11-2-2004. That the original authority - Respondent No. 2 issued a show cause notice dated 26-4-2004 and the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the aforesaid claims applications should not be rejected on the grounds stated in the said show cause notice. 2.2 That by order dated 28-5-2004, the claim presented by the petitioner came to be rejected. 2.3 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the original authority reject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the request of the petitioner, which is not entertained by the impugned communication. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application for the aforesaid reliefs. 3. Having heard Mr. Shastri, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and considering the order dated 24-2-2010 passed in Special Civil Application No. 2053 of 2010 rejecting the aforesaid Special Civil Application, in which the similar prayer was made, as such it is not open for the petitioner to again move the revisional authority and even this Court. As such the proceedings have come to an end when earlier the revisional authority dismissed the revision application by order dated 29-12-2006 confirming the order passed by the original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Even if such a letter is written by the Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner, the same was written during the pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). It is, therefore, not open for the Deputy Commissioner to take any cognizance of the said letter. Not only that, after dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals), the petitioner preferred revision application before the Joint Secretary and that revision application was also rejected on 29-12-2006. Even before the Joint Secretary also, there is no reference to such letter. The order passed by the Joint Secretary was challenged before this Court in Special Civil Application in 2008 and for the first time in 2009, the reference was made to this letter, on the basi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
