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)
Central Excise
2018 (5) TMI 1056 – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT – 2018 (15) G. S. T. L. 587 (Raj.)
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 4-4-2018
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1214 \/ 2018, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1215 \/ 2018
Central Excise
Gopal Krishan Vyas And Ramchandra Singh Jhala, JJ.
\nFor the Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Jain
\nJUDGMENT
\nPer Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gopal Krishan Vyas
\nIn both the writ petition following prayer is made by the petitioners, which reads as under:-
\n “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 da<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n f 8 years in filing revision petition. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n of export. The petitioner's appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) were also rejected. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n .2013 after more than 8 years and the petitioner made request for condonation of huge delay on the ground that they availed wrong forum to challenge the order. The learned revisional authority observed that it was not bonafide mistake and sufficient cause which prevented the petitioners from filing revision application in time as it was their conscious decision to file an appeal, which is not on account of any ignorance of law or lack of resources. Further, it is held that petitioner is 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 <\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ent of India involving the dispute regarding rebate of duty in similar fashion, therefore, it is not a case to condone the delay. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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)Central Excise2018 (5) TMI 1056 – RAJASTHAN … Continue reading “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 Add”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11831","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11831","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11831"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11831\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11831"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11831"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11831"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nAs per the facts of the case, the petitioner procured the raw material at Nil rate of duty under Notification No.43\/2001-CE(NT) dated 26.6.2001 subject to the condition that the final products manufactured from such raw material would be exported. The Central Board of Excise and Customs, vide its notification No.10\/2004 – CE (NT) dated 2.6.2004, amended the above said notification by inserting an explanation to provide that the export of goods 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 industrie<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nBeing aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before CESTAT on 28.10.2005 against the OIA No.464-465 (HSK) CE\/JPR-II\/2005 dated 12.8.2005. Finally the CESTAT, vide its final order No.A56607-566087\/2013-EX(DB) dated 24.5.2013 dismissed the petitioner's appeal as not maitnianble on the ground that they did not have jurisdiction over their appeals as these relate to rebate of Central Excise Duty. 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 condo<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nLearned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention towards the judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court in M\/s Sun Pharmaceutical Industries ltd Vs. UOI & Ors. WP(C) No.7120\/2001 dated 22.8.2016 and another judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of in the case of M\/s. Gilco Exports Ltd. Vs. Union of India in 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.
\nAfter 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 an<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n