SHAKTI SHIPPING INTERNATIONAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10th July, 2009 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, in exercise of powers under section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act) allowing the revision application filed by the Department.

(2.) The facts as appearing in the petition are that the petitioner, a partnership firm, exported Panmasala falling under Chapter 24 of the Central Excise Tariff as a merchant exporter. In relation to the said exports, the petitioner filed nineteen claims of rebate with the Maritime authority, that is, the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Jamnagar. A show-cause notice dated 21st June, 2006 came to be issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamnagar proposing to reject the rebate claims. The show-cause notice culminated into an order dated 6th July, 2006 rejecting all the nineteen rebate claims on the ground that the Superintendent having jurisdiction over the factory of the manufacturer had not endorsed the ARE-1 as prescribed under the law for claiming rebate of central excise duty. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Rajkot who by an order dated 30th August, 2006 allowed the appeal holding that substantive compliance regarding export of goods had been fulfilled by the petitioner and the non-endorsement of triplicate copies of ARE-1 by the Superintendent having jurisdiction over the factory of manufacturer does not appear to be a substantive condition for allowing the rebate claim.

(3.) Against the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Department filed a revision application before the Government of India on the ground that endorsement by the Superintendent having jurisdiction over the factory is an essential and foremost criteria in terms of the instruction for disposal of triplicate copies of ARE-1 and, therefore, the claims of rebate were filed without fulfilling the conditions and procedures prescribed under the law. By an order dated 10th July, 2009, the revision application came to be allowed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the said order.