COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. CIPLA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III. He is aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Revisional order. The Revisional order has been passed by the Respondent No. 2 to this Writ Petition, namely, The Joint Secretary, Government of India. The 1st Respondent, M/s. Cipla Limited, claims to be a merchant exporter who procures Central Excise Duty paid goods for export from various local manufacturers.

(2.) The Commissioner has challenged the order passed by the 2nd Respondent on a very limited issue inasmuch as the claim for refund has been allowed by reversing the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). However, while passing that order, the Revisional Authority in para 10 has directed that the Government cannot retain the amount paid without any authority of law. Therefore, the Government allows the amount to be re-credited in the Cenvat credit account of the concerned manufacturer. The Commissioner's order was modified to this extent.

(3.) Mr. Jetly submits that para 10 of the order, if read in its entirety, is a reconsideration of the earlier view and contains a contrary direction. In that regard, he relied upon another order which is passed in identical circumstances by the Revisional authority whereunder it does not give any clarification. Rather it referred to Section 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. That enabled the Government or the Commissioner of Excise to take a stand that in the event, the re-credit in this Cenvat Credit account of the concerned manufacturer is provided, he will be obliged to satisfy the authority from whom any relief or benefit or refund is sought that he has not passed on the burden to the buyer in terms of Section 12B. Lest, in the submission of Mr. Jetly Section 12B would apply straightway and the presumption would enable the Government to deny the benefit or the relief. Our attention has been drawn to orders passed by the Central Government, namely, the Respondent No. 2, in the case of a revision application. That was filed by the very Assessee before us and in that regard, orders have been passed on 15th October, 2013 and 22nd October, 2013 in which above mentioned clarification has been given.