A.G. ENTERPRISES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Udit Chandra, Advocate, for petitioner. Sri Siddharth Shukla, who has appeared on behalf of Government of India, is not prepared with the matter and could not render any assistance to the Court. In the circumstances, after hearing Counsel for petitioner, I proceed to decide the matter. Petitioner is engaged in manufacture and export of certain commodities including Diesel Engines. Certain Diesel Engines were exported and the petitioner submitted two rebate claims for duty drawback on custom to the tune of Rs. 1,02,242/- and 84,441/- on 4-3-2008 through respective Bills. The Assistant Commissioner Central Excise served a notice dated 22-4-2008 upon petitioner requiring him to show cause as to why his claim be not rejected inasmuch the benefit of input stage rebate, where finished goods are exported under claim for duty drawback, is not admissible vide para 1.5(i) part-V of Chapter 8 of CBE&C's Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions. Petitioner submitted reply dated 28-4-2008 stating that if the exporter claims duty drawback of excise duty, then rebate claim of Excise duty is not permissible, but that is not applicable on duty drawback of Customs duty and petitioner has claimed duty drawback of only Customs duty and not of Excise duty. The matter was examined by Assistant Commissioner and he rejected petitioner's claim vide order dated 31-7-2008. Petitioner preferred appeal before the Commissioner, Central Excise, Kanpur which was allowed vide order dated 21-11-2008. Commissioner has considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter and recorded its findings as under:

(2.) The Department thereafter preferred Revision before Central Government which has been allowed by impugned order dated 12-5-2011 [2012 (276) E.L.T. 122 (G.O.I.)] and Commissioner's Order has been set aside.

(3.) Sri Udit Chandra, learned Counsel for petitioner, contended that without considering reasons and findings given by Commissioner, the Central Government in a cursory manner has allowed revision and reversed the decision of Commissioner. The question raised by petitioner has not at all been discussed and in effect the order of Central Government is wholly non-speaking.