Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. Versus Union of India, The Commissioner (Appeals) , Central Excise & Central Goods and Service Tax, The Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, (Formerly Known As Central Excise and Service Tax) , The Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) – 2018 (5) TMI 1056 – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT – 2018 (15) G. S. T. L. 587 (Raj.) – Revision petition u/s 35 EE of the CEA 1944 – the revisional authority (respondent no.4) dismissed the revision petition only on the ground of delay of 8 years in filing revision petition – Held that: – petitioner preferred revision petitions after delay of 8 years knowingly well that revision is not maintainable, preferred appeal before CESTAT and CESTAT Commissioner specifically apprised the counsel for the petitioner in his order dated 9.8.2005 that in case petitioner is aggrieved with the order, he should file revision application to the Joint Secretary, Government of Indi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
gainst petitioner. – D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1214 / 2018, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1215 / 2018 Dated:- 4-4-2018 – Gopal Krishan Vyas And Ramchandra Singh Jhala, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Jain JUDGMENT Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gopal Krishan Vyas In both the 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 praye
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
can be effected under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules only. The Central Board of Excise and customs, vide its circular no.792/25/2004-CX dated 2.6.2004 also clarified that the explanation inserted in Rule 19 will be effective from 26.6.2001. In above situation, a show cause notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner to disallow the rebate claims to the petitioner on the ground that they had exported the goods under Rule 18. However, o getting various representation from the industries 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 CBE
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
After dismissal of their appeal by CESTAT, petitioner has filed the revision petition before the revisonal authority on 19.8.2013 on the ground that they had cleared goods from factory prior to amendment in notification No.43/2001-CE (NT) w.e.f. 2.6.2004 and, therefore, the date of clearance of goods from factory should be considered as date of export and the rebate of duty should b paid to them. The aforesaid revision application were filed beyond specific period of three months and application for condonation of delay was also filed for the reason that they lost time in pursuing remedy before the wrong forum due to bonafide mistake and the same is condonable by virtue of several decision of various court and tribunal. The learned revisional court 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
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
major bsiness entity, backed by a storng managerial and legal team, and the above facts fully demonstrate that they always fought their legal battle at all plate forms. When CBEC had issued its earlier cirtuclar dated 2.6.2004 clarifying that explanation in notification No.43/2001-CE (NT) will be effective from retrospective effect, the petitioner immediately approached Rajasthan High Court and when their rebate claims were rejected by lower authority and the appellate authority they not only filed the appeals before the CESTAT but also seriously pursued their appeals for almost 8 years until their appeal s were dismissed by CESTAT for lack of jurisdiction over the issue. It is also observed that when appeals were filed before CESTAT by them despite Commissioner (Appeal) had expressly advised the petitioner in his order dated 9.8.2005 that in case they are aggrieved with his order then they should revision application to the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, D
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
CM No.12812of 2014 dated 17.12.2014 and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MP Steel Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise in Civil Appeal No.4367/2004 dated 23.4.2015 and submits that the delay was to be condoned by the revisional authority after 8 years. After hearing learned counsel for the parties it emerges from the facts that petitioner preferred revision petitions after delay of 8 years knowingly well that revision is not maintainable, preferred appeal before CESTAT and CESTAT Commissioner specifically apprised the counsel for the petitioner in his order dated 9.8.2005 that in case petitioner is aggrieved with the order, he should file revision application to the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi but the petitioners over looked the Commissioner s advise and perused the appeal before the CESTAT for 8 years and in between said period some revision petition were field in other matter, meaning thereby, it is not a fit
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =