AROMA CHEMICALS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 3, the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Moradabad to refund the amount of rebate claimed in pursuance of the order dated 30-10-2007 and to pay interest @ 12% on amount of Rs. 1,37,833/- from three months from the date of filing of rebate claim till date of payment along with other reliefs. The fact of the case is that the petitioner is a partnership firm and is engaged in the manufacturing of various excisable items such as product of Mentha, Menthol, Menthol Crystal and essential oils falling under Chapter Nos. 29, 30 and 33 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It is duly registered with the Central Excise Department.

(2.) The petitioner claims that it is engaged in export of menthol and is entitled to rebate of duty paid on the exported goods as per the Rules. The claim of the petitioner for rebate of duty was denied by the Department and the matter was carried in revision before the Central Government. The Central Government by its order dated 14-6-2006 allowed the revision filed by the petitioner and held that the petitioner/applicants are eligible for rebate of Central Excise duty paid on the clearance of the impugned goods. The matter was remanded back to the original authority for sanctioning rebate of Central Excise duty to the applicants/petitioner as discussed in the order. After remand, the department again rejected the claim of the petitioner by its order dated 31-3-2007. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise Division, Moradabad. The said appeal has been allowed by the order dated 30-10-2007 and the order-in-appeal has been set aside. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for refund of amount on 13-12-2007. A copy of which is Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The petitioner had sent several reminder for refunding the said amount but in vain. Feeling aggrieved that no action is being taken by the Department, the present writ petition has been filed. In the counter affidavit, the material averments made in the writ petition have not been denied. However, the respondent has come with the case that the order dated 30-10-2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is sub judice before the Central Government by way of revision. Since the revision is pending, according to the respondent, no case of grant of any refund has been made.

(3.) Heard Sri Bharatji Agarwal, learned senior counsel along with Sri Subham Agarwal for the petitioner and Sri BKS Raghuvansi, learned counsel for the respondent.