ISCON SURGICALS LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this petition for writ is no more res integra in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Spentax Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [Civil Appeal No. 1978/2007, decided on 9-10-2015] [2015 (324) E.L.T. 686 (S.C.)].

(2.) This petition for writ is preferred to have a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order passed by the revisional authority dated 23-7-2012 [2013 (288) E.L.T. 147 (G.O.I.)], available on record as Annexure-1. The revisional authority while rejecting the revision petition preferred by the petitioner held that the rebate as permissible cannot be claimed for second time.

(3.) Before us, the argument advanced by learned counsel is that Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, on which the impugned action as well as the impugned order is based has already been interpreted by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M/s. Spentax Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and as per the view taken, the exporters are entitled to both the rebates under Rule 18 and not one kind of rebate only.