PODDAR EXPORTS(INDIA) PROPRIETARY FIRM SHRI PRADEEP Vs. UNION OF INDIA THRO JOINT SECRETARY(REVISIONAL AUTHORITY)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order quashing and setting aside the impugned order No.270/2011CX dated 23.03.2011 passed by the Joint Secretary Government of India by which the Revisional Authority confirmed the Order in Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Surat 1 disallowing the rebate claim of Rs.3,51,469/ -+ Rs.1,98,432/ -claimed by the petitioner on the goods exported by the petitioner as merchant exporter for which according to the petitioner, petitioner applied with all necessary requirements as required under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 2002").

(2.) FACTS leading to the present Special Civil Application in nutshell are as under:

(3.) PRESENT petition is opposed by Shri R.J. Oza, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Department. It is submitted that in the present case as such there are concurrent findings of facts by all the authorities below that infact there was no physical movement of the goods/inputs and the transactions between the petitioner and the supplier M/s. Raju Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. were fake transactions. It is submitted that there are concurrent findings of fact by all the authorities below that the transactions between the petitioner and M/s. Raju Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. (Supplier) were only billing activities for the purpose of availing CENVAT Credit as well as the rebate. It is submitted that it has been found by all the authorities below that M/s. Om Textiles from whom M/s. Raju Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. is alleged to have purchased the goods was already declared nonexistent/fake/bogus unit vide order/letter dated 31.03.2005 of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat -1 and even M/s. Shree Ganesh Textiles from whom M/s. Raju Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. (Supplier) was alleged to have purchased the goods on physical ground. It was found that the said unit is bogus/fake by way of endorsement on letter dated 22.03.2005. It is submitted that therefore when in the facts and circumstances of the case, it has been found that the transactions between M/s. Raju Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. (Supplier) and the petitioner were sham being mere paper transactions and it was only billing activities, the petitioner is rightly denied the rebate claim.