Court retroactively applied corrigendum, nullifying rebate denial based on original notification, reinstating assessing authority's decision.

The court held that the corrigendum dated 29-11-2002 had retrospective effect from the original notification date (19-4-2002). The orders of the appellate and revisional authorities disallowing the rebate were invalidated as they were based on the original notification, not the corrected version. The court quashed these orders and reinstated the assessing authority's decision, allowing the writ petition without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
2. Interpretation and applicability of Notification No. 43/2002-Cus., dated 19-4-2002 and its corrigendum dated 29-11-2002.
3. Retrospective effect of the corrigendum.
4. Validity of the orders passed by the appellate and revisional authorities.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for Rebate Under Rule 18:
The petitioner, engaged in the manufacture of bulk drugs, availed credit of duty paid on inputs and utilized such credit for payment of duty on goods cleared domestically or exported. The petitioner regularly exported bulk drugs and obtained advance licenses for duty-free import/procurement of inputs. The petitioner paid central excise duty on exported finished products and claimed a rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The first respondent sanctioned 13 rebate claims amounting to Rs. 1,02,63,079/- for the period 2005-2006.

2. Interpretation and Applicability of Notification No. 43/2002-Cus.:
The petitioner received a show cause notice from the second respondent questioning the eligibility for the sanctioned rebate under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, arguing that the petitioner was ineligible unless they availed benefits under Notification No. 43/2002-Cus., dated 19-4-2002. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice relied on the original text of the notification, which had been corrected by a corrigendum. The petitioner argued that they claimed a rebate on the goods exported, not on the materials used for manufacture, and that the interpretation of the notification was inconsistent with the EXIM policy and the Rules.

3. Retrospective Effect of the Corrigendum:
The core issue was whether the corrigendum dated 29-11-2002 had retrospective effect from the date of the original notification (19-4-2002). The petitioner argued that the corrigendum was a correction that related back to the original notification date. The court referred to the definitions and judicial interpretations of 'corrigendum,' concluding that a corrigendum is a correction that relates back to the date of the original notification. The court cited the Allahabad High Court and Supreme Court decisions, emphasizing that a correction must date back to the original notification to be effective.

4. Validity of the Orders Passed by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities:
The appellate authority allowed the department's appeals, holding that the assessing authority erred in granting the rebate. The revisional authority upheld this decision, disallowing the rebate for exports made during the period when the original Notification No. 93/2004-Cus., dated 10-9-2004, was applicable. The court found that the corrigendum corrected the notification and related back to its original date, thus invalidating the orders of the appellate and revisional authorities. The court quashed these orders and restored the order of the assessing authority.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the corrigendum dated 29-11-2002 was a correction that related back to the original notification date (19-4-2002). Consequently, the orders of the appellate and revisional authorities were contrary to the corrected notification. The court quashed the impugned orders and restored the order of the assessing authority, allowing the writ petition without costs.

---