2017 (2) TMI 839

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and setting aside of the recovery notice issued pursuant to Order-in-Original dated 30-8-2013. 3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is a company engaged in manufacturing of various kinds of Hand Tools. The petitioner exports the final product outside India. Therefore, in terms of Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, the petitioner claimed rebate of the central excise duty paid on input used in manufacturing of the goods exported. The waste scrape that is generated while manufacturing of such product, though sold in domestic market, is exempt from  payment of duty. 3.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner, till 2005 cleared the waste and scrap generated during the course of manufacture of final product ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Joint Secretary of the Government of India, i.e. Respondent No. 2. 4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that even when the question of entitlement of rebate is subject matter of challenge before the appropriate authority, as the petitioner had persuaded the legal remedy available to the petitioner is still at large, in the meantime, the respondent authorities issued show cause notices which are impugned herein. 4.1 Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that despite several reminders to the Respondent No. 2 to decide the revision application, which is pending since 2014, the same has remained undecided. 4.2 Learned Advocate for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Ashima ....