SANDEEP S. MHAMUNKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, by consent, returnable forthwith. With the consent of the counsel and at their request, the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.

(2.) The Petitioner seeks to challenge in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India an order passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by which the claim to rebate made by the Petitioner has been rejected.

(3.) The Joint Secretary has upheld concurrent findings of fact recorded both by the Assistant Commissioner and by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Petitioner who is a merchant-exporter, exported goods purchased from a firm by the name of High Collection Texpin. The supplier was found to be fictitious and non-existent. In his statement, the proprietor of the Petitioner admitted that he had purchased the goods through a broker and that he had never met the owner or representative of the supplier. There is a finding of fact that no excise duty had been paid on the exported goods. The contentions of counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner are that; (i) The Petitioner had received a genuine invoice from High Collection Texpin; and (ii) The Range Superintendent had issued a certificate in regard to the payment of duty. This would not advance the case of the Petitioner for the simple reason that the very supplier from whom the Petitioner purchased goods was found to be non-existent. The Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in coming to the conclusion that the Petitioner was unable to establish the actual payment of the duty on the exported goods. Interference with the finding of fact is not warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Petitioner has despite the finding against him, been given the benefit of a waiver of the penalty imposed. No case for interference is made out. The Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.