✦ Bombay High Court · 09 Mar 2006

M/s.Shubhada Polymers Products P.Ltd v. The Union of India & Anr.

Writ Petition No. 606 of 2006R M LODHA, P DEVADHAR3 min read

Case at a glance

Decided
09 Mar 2006
Bench
R M LODHA, P DEVADHAR

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 99. We, accordingly, dispose of the rule by the following order: (i) (ii) The 30th June, 2005 passed Joint Secretary, Government India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi is quashed and set aside. The revision applications arising orders Appeal No.AT/82/M-II/04 Appeal No.AT/85 & 86/Mumbai-II/2004 27th October…

Judgment

30th June 2005 passed Joint Secretary, Government India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi whereby he disposed of three revision applications. 2

5.

The petitioners rebate claims rejected Deputy Commissioner orders original passed 23rd January, 2004, 9th March, 2004 23rd April,

2004. appeals. Aggrieved thereby petitioners preferred The Commissioner (Appeals) consolidated 28th October, 2004 disposed appeals arising 9th March, 2004 23rd April,

2004. By a separate passed a earlier 27th October, 2004, Commissioner (Appeals) disposed Appeal 23rd January,

2004. Aggrieved thereby revision applications petitioners Section 35 EE(2) Central Excise Act,

1944. All revision applications, indicated above, dismissed on 30th June, 2005. Hence the present writ petition.

6.

The present petition deserves allowed ground non-consideration Corrigendum 19th November, 2002 clarifying condition V Notification No.43/2002-CUS 19th April, 2002 despite specific contention raised regard petitioner. In revision application, admittedly, the petitioner raised inter alia the following contentions: (a) That Notification appellants No.43/2002-Cus. submitted Dated: 3 against therein, availment (v) concerned, initio 19/04/2002 corrected D.E.E.C. condition barred (ARE-2) rebate (finished 19(1) The Commissioner without rebate and without taking the change made in the Notification No.43/2002-Cus. ARE-1 19(2) relief (ARE-1), CR1 Rule Ld. bar, 19/04/2002 therefore, 18 + stands correctly (input) ARE-2, 18 facility. rejected 18 CT2 against rebate +ARE-1), applying (b) . Govt. That Finance Revenue No:9/2002 dt: 29/11/2002 issued a Corrigendum which read as below:- & Co. India, affairs, Ministry Department Public Notice Drawback 705 Govt. paragraph "G.S.R. opening Ministry No: published (extraordinary), (E), (rebates in the manufacturer of resultant product. " 43/2002-Cus. (E)":- India Finance, In Dept., Dated: condition Notification Gazette G.S.R.No: figure "rule materials & (v) erstwhile Revenue, 19/04/2002, India 292 18

7.

Upon perusal impugned order, discussion and consideration of the Corrigendum dated 29th November, 2002 in the impugned order.

8.

Without merits matter, satisfied matter requires reconsideration revisional authority concerning applicability corrigendum November, 2002 clarifying condition V 29th Notification No.43/2002-Cus dated 19th April, 2002 was 4 not considered by the revisional authority.

9.

We, accordingly, dispose of the rule by the following order: (i) (ii) The 30th June, 2005 passed Joint Secretary, Government India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi is quashed and set aside. The revision applications arising orders Appeal No.AT/82/M-II/04 Appeal No.AT/85 & 86/Mumbai-II/2004 27th October, 2004 28th October, 2004 restored Joint Secretary, Government India, Ministry Finance, New Delhi consideration accordance with law in the light of the Corrigendum dated 29th November, 2002. . No costs. LODHA,J.) (R.M. LODHA,J.) (R.M. LODHA,J.) (R.M. DEVADHAR,J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR,J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR,J.) (J.P.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 606 of 2006). ← Search more judgments