HI SPEED OFFSETS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of both the parties, the matter is heard for final disposal. This writ petition is directed against an order of the Central Government passed on revisional jurisdiction under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Central Government - revisional authority set aside the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise dated 26 -2 -2010.

(2.) THE petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee') manufactures and exports desk diaries through merchant exporter against form C.T.I. without payment of duty. It claimed refund of duty paid on excisable inputs used in the manufacture of the final product and other diaries. The rebate was granted in terms of the interpretation accepted by the concerned authorities of the DEPB Scheme which in turn relied upon the scheme itself launched on 1 -4 -1997. The authorities accepted the assessee's stand. This view which culminated in the opinion and order of the Commissioner of appeals was challenged in the revisional proceedings by the Central Government.

(3.) IT is argued that the revisional authority fell into error in ignoring Rule 18. Learned counsel contended that when the final product is exempted from payment of duty, the intention of the policy maker was to extend relief uniformly to the exporter who uses either excisable goods or imported goods. The DEPB scheme could not be construed in a manner so as to discriminate between an exporter by denying the benefit to him who use domestically manufactured inputs which had suffered excise duty and on the other hand grant benefit to an exporter who uses imported inputs. Learned counsel emphasises that this intention was brought vividly by the Bombay High Court in Indorama Textiles Ltd. (supra).