Allowed

m/s shubhada polymers products p.ltd v. the union of india and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Mar 2006WP/606/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench, allowing a writ petition, quashed an order dismissing a revision application because the authorities failed to consider a specific Corrigendum regarding exemption conditions. The case was remitted for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 30th June 2005 by the Joint Secretary was quashed and set aside. The three revision applications were restored to the file for fresh consideration in light of the Corrigendum dated 29t

m/s shubhada polymers products p.ltd Vs the union of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIGINAL SIDE

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.606 OF 2006

¶4

M/s.Shubhada Polymers Products P.Ltd. Petitioners vs. The Union of India & anr. Respondents

¶5

Mr.M.H.Patil with Ms.Aparna Hirandagi for the petitioners.

¶6

Mr.P.S.Jetley with Mr.C.J.Joy for the respondents.

¶7

CORAM : R. M. LODHA & J.P. DEVADHAR,JJ .

¶8

DATED : 9th March, 2006

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Rule. Returnable forthwith.

¶11

Mr.C.J.Joy, advocate waives service for the

¶12

respondents.

¶13

By consent, rule is heard finally at this stage.

¶14

4.	The		petitioners	have	approa	ched	this	Court	by	means
of	this	writ	petition	aggr	ieved	by	the	order	dated	30th
June	2005	p	assed by	the	Joint	Se	cretary,	Govern	ment	of
India, Min	istry of Fina	nce,	New Delhi	whereby	he

¶15

disposed of three revision applications.

¶16

¶17

5. The petit	ioners rebate claims were rejected by	the
Deputy Commissioner	vide three orders in original	passed
on 23rd January,	2004, 9th March, 2004 and 23rd	April,
2004. Aggrieved	thereby the petitioners preferred	three
appeals. The	Commissioner (Appeals) by co	nsolidated
order dated 28th	October, 2004 disposed of two	appeals
arising out of	the order dated 9th March, 2004 and	23rd
April, 2004.	By a separate order passed a day	earlier
on 27th Octobe	r, 2004, the Commissioner	(Appeals)
disposed of the	Appeal from the order dated	23rd
January, 2004.	Aggrieved thereby the three	revision
applications were	filed by the petitioners under	Section
35 EE(2) of the	Central Excise Act, 1944. All the	three
revision applications,	as indicated above, came to	be

¶18

dismissed on 30th June, 2005. Hence the present writ

¶19

petition.

¶20

6.	The presen	t writ petiti	on deserv	es to	be	allowed	on
the	short ground	of non-co	nsideration	of	the	Corrig	endum
dated	19th Nove	mber, 2002	clarifying	the	conditio	n V	of
the	Notification	No.43/2002-CUS	dated	19th	April,		2002
despite	the specific	contention	raised	in	this	regard	by
the	petitioner.	In	the	rev	ision	appli	cation,

¶21

admittedly, the petitioner raised inter alia the

¶22

following contentions:

¶23

(a) That the appellants had submitted that Notification No.43/2002-Cus. Dated:

¶24

¶25

19/04/2002 is concerned, it stands corrected ab initio from 19/04/2002 and D.E.E.C. availment bar, therefore, vide condition (v) therein, is correctly barred only against Rule 18 18 (input) (ARE-2) or rule 19(2) CT2 + ARE-2, rebate or relief and not against rule 18 (finished goods (ARE-1), rebate or rule 19(1) ARE-1 or CR1 +ARE-1), facility. The Ld. Commissioner thus rejected rebate claim without applying his mind and without taking the change made in the Notification No.43/2002-Cus. (b) That the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance & Co. affairs, Department of Revenue vide Drawback Public Notice No:9/2002 dt: 29/11/2002 issued a Corrigendum which read as below:. "G.S.R. 705 (E)":In condition (v) of opening paragraph of the Notification of the Govt. of India in the erstwhile Ministry of Finance, Dept., of Revenue, No: 43/2002-Cus. Dated: 19/04/2002, published in the Gazette of India (extraordinary), vide G.S.R.No: 292 (E), the words & figure "rule 18 (rebates of duty paid on materials used in the manufacturer of resultant product." 7. Upon perusal of the impugned order, we find no

¶26

discussion and consideration of the Corrigendum dated

¶27

29th November, 2002 in the impugned order.

¶28

8.	Without	going into	the	merits	of	the	matter,	we are
satisfied	that	the	matter	requ	ires	recon	sideration	by
the	revisional	authority	since		the		vital	issue
concerning	applica	bility of		cor	rigendu	m	dated	29th
November,	2002	clarifying	co	ndition		V	of	the

¶29

Notification No.43/2002-Cus dated 19th April, 2002 was

¶30

¶31

not considered by the revisional authority.

¶32

We, accordingly, dispose of the rule by the following order:

¶33

(i)	The	order dated 30th	June,	2005	passed
	by	the Joint Secr	etary, Go	vernment	of
	India, Min quashed a	istry of Finance, New Delhi is nd set aside.
(ii)	The	three revision	appli	cations	arising
	out	of orders in	Appeal	No.AT/	82/M-II/04
	and	Appeal No.AT/85	&	86/Mum	bai-II/2004
	dated	27th October,	2004	and	28th
	October,	2004 are rest	ored to	the	file
	of	the Joint Secre	tary, Go	vernment	of
	India,	Ministry of	Finance,	New	Delhi
	for	fresh considera	tion in	a	ccordance

¶34

with law in the light of the Corrigendum

¶35

dated 29th November, 2002.

¶36

. No costs.

¶37

(J.P. DEVADHAR,J.)

m/s shubhada polymers products p.ltd v. the union of india and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

m/s shubhada polymers products p.ltd v. the union of india and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jawahar P. Kanungo Vs Union of India and Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and Anr.

Comushop Techno (I) Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

M/S. Business India Vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax 12(1) and 3 Ors.

M/S. Hickoson and Dadajee Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

M/S.Sudhir Diamonds Vs Union of India and Anr.

Vinay Saigal Vs the Union of India and Ors.