2010 (2) TMI 564

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on the representation dated 8-8-2009. 2. Heard Mr. Hardik P. Modh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and perused the orders passed by the authorities below and the documents attached with the petition. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner vide its order dated 28-5-2004 rejected the refund claim of the petitioner. The said order was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide his order dated 19-5-2005 confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The order of Commissioner (Appeals) was further challenged by way of Revision Application before the respondent No. 2 i.e. Joint Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), New Delhi. The Joint Secretary has....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. Kanha lnternationale is not feasible because goods have been exported and duty paying documents are genuine. The Deputy Commissioner was, therefore, directed to process the rebate claims. On the basis of this letter, the petition filed earlier before this Court was withdrawn and representation was made. 7. The above letter which is heavily relied on by Mr. Modh is stated to have been written on 3-8-2005. By that time, the Deputy Commissioner has al ready taken the decision on 28-5-2004 whereby the refund claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner. Once the Deputy Commissioner has already passed order, against which the petitioner has filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), there is no business of the Commis....