2019 (7) TMI 396

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... impugned order, the Respondent-Revenue's Revision Application was allowed by holding that the Petitioner are not entitled to rebate of the duty paid on goods which were exported under the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (the said Rules). 3. Briefly, the facts leading to this Petition are as under: (i) The Petitioner is a merchant exporter. During period November 2002 to February 2005, Petitioner exported fabrics under 14 claims of rebate under Rule 18 of the said Rules. (ii) The above fabrics exported by the Petitioner on which the rebate was claimed had been purchased from one M/s. Rachana Art Print Private Limited (M/s.Rachana). The exported fabrics were manufactured by M/s. Rachana ; (iii) At the time M/s. Rachana sold the above f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uty. (vi) Being aggrieved with the order dated 3rd May, 2011, the Respondent-Revenue filed a Revision under Section 35EE of the Act to the Government of India. By the impugned order dated 31st January, 2018, the Government of India in Revision, allowed Respondent-Revenue's appeal, by restoring the order dated 21st October, 2010 of the Original Authority. The basis of the impugned order of the Government of India in Revision, was only the order dated 31st July, 2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise in the case of M/s. Rachana. 4. Mr. Shah, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner amended the Petition and brought on record events subsequent to the filing of this Petition. The Petitioner points out that the order da....