LGW Ltd. vs Union of India

Debangsu Basak, J.—The petitioner has assailed an Order bearing No. 12/08, dated December 16, 2008 passed on revision under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, the revisional authority had failed to appreciate that, the revisional authority in an earlier consignment has negated the contentions of the Commissioner of Central Excise as sought to be upheld in the impugned order. He has submitted that, the identity of the goods exported stands established. He has also submitted that, identical issues raised by the Commissioner of Central Excise were dealt with in respect of the earlier consignment by the revisional authority, against the department. That being the position, the impugned order ought to be set aside.

Learned Advocate for the department has submitted that, the petitioner is not entitled to the claim negative equality. The earlier decision of the revisional authority cannot be taken advantage of by the petitioner. Consequently, the revisional authority is correct in passing the impugned order.

I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.

The first petitioner is a merchant-exporter. It had submitted claims for rebate in respect of goods exported to Bangladesh. Apparently, the petitioner had exported diverse consignments to Bangladesh. In one of such consignments, the issue with regard to the identity of the goods was raised. The issue was settled by an Order dated August 29, 2000 passed by the revisional authority. The revisional authority had found that, the goods exported by the respondents were manufactured by the Steel Authority of India Limited and was cleared on payment of Central Excise duty. It has also noted that, relevant ARE forms bear the Customs endorsement to the effect that, the goods was under Customs supervision. The revisional authority had found that, the petitioner had exported Central Excise Duty paid goods out of India and consequently, was entitled to the rebate under Section 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

In the present case also, the goods manufactured by SAIL were exported. The petitioner had applied for rebate. The rebate was disallowed. Against the order disallowing the rebate, the petitioner had filed an appeal. The appeal was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Kolkata. Against the same, a revisional application was filed by the department. The revisional application was allowed by the impugned order. The ground for allowing the revisional application is that, the respondent had allegedly committed procedural lapses which was condoned on the earlier occasion, consequently the petitioner is not entitled to the rebate as prayed for. The revisional authority has not found that, the petitioner did not export Central Excise Duty paid goods out of India, or that the relevant ARE forms do not bear the appropriate Customs endorsements. The alleged procedural lapses for the consignment under consideration have also not been alluded to or identified.

In such circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The parties will act in accordance with the directions issued by the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Kolkata.

W.P. No. 567 of 2009 is allowed. No order as to costs.