TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (6) TMI 631
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The petitioner has been regularly exporting bulk drugs and for the export so undertaken, it has obtained advance licenses for duty free import/procurement of inputs required for the manufacture of the bulk drugs. The advance licenses so obtained are being redeemed from time to time after discharge of the export obligation. The petitioner has been paying central excise duty on the finished products exported and has been claiming rebate on the duty so paid under Rule 18 of the Rules, 2002. The petitioner filed 13 rebate claims for a total amount of Rs. 1,02,63,079/- during the period 2005-2006 which was sanctioned by the first respondent herein. The details of the amount sanctioned are indicated in the table below : Sl. No. Order-in-Origin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he rebate of duty paid on materials used for manufacture of export goods but on the goods exported and that the interpretation of the said notification is inconsistent with the provisions of the EXIM policy and the Rules and the rebate claim not to be recovered by invoking the provisions of the said notification and requested to drop the notice. In addition to the issue of show cause notice dated 7-7-2006, the department filed separate appeals against each of the above mentioned orders before the third respondent challenging the grant of rebate on the ground that the assessing authority had erred in sanctioning the rebate without verifying as to whether the petitioner had fulfilled the restriction imposed in condition No. (v) of Notificatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 4) herein) Annexure 'A'. (b) issue an appropriate writ to quash order-in-appeal No. 19/2007-C.E., dated 16-1-2007 passed by respondent No. 3 (Annexure 'G'). (c) direct the respondents to pay the petitioner the cost of this petition. (d) issue appropriate writ, order/direction sanctioning interest under Section 11BB on the above amount. (e) grant opportunity of hearing and ad interim order staying the order dated 9-2-2010 and granting consequential relief, and (f) pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case." 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the order of the assessing authority has to be sustained. In this connection, he has relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Dunlop India Limited - (1994) 92 STC 571 and the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and Another v. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. and Another - (2004) 7 SCC 673. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that the corrigendum referred to above is prospective in nature and it will not have retrospective operation from 19-4-2002. In this connection, he has relied on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Mustang Rubbers Industrial Estate - 2009 (237) E.L.T. 257. 5. Having regard ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....but while describing its survey number it mentions 111/10 instead of 111/11. Suppose, a corrigendum is issued after one year correcting the number as 111/11, would it be permissible to argue that the date of notification under Section 4, so far as survey No. 111/11 is concerned, is not the original date of notification but the date of corrigendum notification? I think not. The same result should follow here. It is equally relevant to notice that in the margin to Notification No. 3867 not merely the notification number but full reference of notification is given as "ST-4748/X-900(15)-61" besides the date. Both the notifications, namely, No. 4748 and No. 3867 expressly purport to have been issued under Section 4-B and deal with the subject of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the decision of the Apex Court in Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner - 1991 (55) E.L.T. 437 has held that the scope of notification has to be considered with reference to the statutory provision under which it is issued. Having regard to the language contained in Section 5(a)(i) of the Act, the Court has held that the notification will come into force on the date of its issue. The notification impugned therein did not provide for retrospectivity. Therefore, it comes into force on the date of issue, namely, 11-8-2003. That is not the position in the present case. The notification itself states that the words and figures 'under Rule 18' shall be corrected to read as 'under Rule 18 (rebate of duty paid on material....