2010 (2) TMI 564 - HC - Central Excise

Court affirms petition rejection; stresses legal provisions, petitioner's actions; dismisses case due to writ jurisdiction limits.

The Court upheld the rejection of the petition, emphasizing the importance of legal provisions, the petitioner's actions, and the inability to address ... Scope of writ petition - Rejection of refund claim by Deputy Commissioner confirmed by Comm (A) and further challenge to it in revision application before Joint Secretary, GOI, also rejected - rejection of the rebate claim is not feasible because goods have been exported and duty paying documents are genuine - There are three orders of the competent authorities giving concurrent findings of facts rejecting the refund claim of the petitioner, which were all self seaking and giving detailed reasons – Held that: - Could not find substance in the petition and the petition is accordingly dismissed. - HC cannot exercise its equitable writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner and there are several disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into by this Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the petition and the petition is accordingly dismissed. Issues:Challenge to orders passed by respondent, Representation for fresh order, Rejection of refund claim, Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), Revision application before Joint Secretary, Withdrawal of petition, Representation to Joint Secretary, Disposal of representation, Grounds for petition, Reliance on letter dated 3-8-2005, Multiple rejections of claim, Equitable writ jurisdiction.Analysis:The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 seeking to quash orders passed by the respondent and requesting a fresh order after considering a representation. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the refund claim, upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), and further challenged through a Revision Application before the Joint Secretary, who also rejected it. A subsequent petition was withdrawn with liberty to make a representation, leading to a representation on 8-8-2009, disposed of on 9-12-2009 citing no provision for reconsideration under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944.The petitioner's sole ground was a letter dated 3-8-2005 from the Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner, stating the rejection of the rebate claim was not feasible due to genuine duty paying documents for exported goods. However, the Deputy Commissioner had already rejected the claim on 28-5-2004, upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 19-5-2005, and the Joint Secretary on 29-12-2006. The letter was issued during the pendency of the appeal, making it irrelevant post-dismissal. Despite three concurrent rejections, the petitioner sought to revive proceedings based on this letter, which was deemed insufficient by the Court.The Court found no infirmity in the orders dated 29-12-2006 and 9-12-2009, as the Joint Secretary cited Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act for the impossibility of reconsideration. Given the petitioner's conduct and the factual disputes, the Court declined to exercise equitable writ jurisdiction, dismissing the petition due to the lack of substance and inability to delve into disputed facts.In conclusion, the Court upheld the rejection of the petition, emphasizing the importance of legal provisions, the petitioner's actions, and the inability to address factual disputes within the scope of the writ jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of the case.