9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1056X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e writ petition following prayer is made by the petitioners, which reads as under:- "i) That the present writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 1010.2017 (Annex.13) passed by the Respondent No.4, impugned Order-in-Original dated 31.3.2005 (Annex.9) and impugned order - in - Appeal dated. 12.8.2015 (Annex.10) may kindly be quashed and set aside ii) By giving effect to judgment dated 2.1.2005, 1.7.2011 of this Hon'ble Court and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court , the Respondents should process and decide the rebate claimsof the petitioner within stipulated timeframe. iii) By an appropirae writ order or direction the rebate claim filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed as prayed for. iv) Any o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ries against the above mentioned circular, the CBEC issued another circular no.805/2/2005-Cx dated 11.1.2005 clarifying that the explanation in notification no.43/2001-CE (NT) shall be applicable prospectively i.e., from 2.6.2004, but not to the exports made after 2.6.2004. in the meantime, soon after CBEC had issued earlier circular dated 2.6.2004, the petitioner had filed a SBCWP Nos.4634/2004 and 4751/2004 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 2.2.2005 when the CBES issued its 2nd circular dated 11.1.2015 clarifying that the amendment in notification no.43/2001-CE(NT) notification no.10/2004 CE (NT) is applicable from prospective effect and not from retrospective effect. The matter was reconsidered by the Assistant Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt rejected the revision application on the ground that as per Section 35 EE (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 the application under sub-Section (1) i.e., revision application can be made within three months from the date of communication to the petitioner of the order against which the application is being made. The learned revisional authority observed that proviso to sub Section (2) authorizes the Government to allow the petitioner to present the application within a further period of three months if the government is satisfied that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the application within the normal period of three months. Admittedly, the revision petition was filed against the orders dated 9.8.2005 on 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of Revenue, New Delhi, but the application overlooked the Commissioner (Appeal)'s above advise an filed appeal before the CESTAT. Further observed that V. Laxmikumaran field number of revision applications for hundreds of clients before the Central Government earlier on regular basis. Thus, they were fully aware that the CESTAT was not a proper appellate forum for dispute of rebate claim. It is also observed that petitioners themselves have filed the five revisonis applications with the Government of India involving the dispute regarding rebate of duty in similar fashion, therefore, it is not a case to condone the delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention towards the judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court in M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
