2022 (6) TMI 5

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (herein after referred to as 'Act'). 2. By the impugned order, the 1st respondent/Revisional Authority has disposed of 39 revision applications, wherein various orders passed by the Appellate Commissioner partly rejecting the petitioner's rebate claim under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were rejected. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had exported various goods and earlier a part of the rebate claim was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal in respect of 39 different rebate claims before the Appellate Commissioner, who remitted the case back to the original authority to pass orders de novo. It is submitted that after th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... submitted that no procedural irregularity has been pointed out to warrant interference. It is submitted that the 1st respondent has passed well reasoned orders, which require no further interference of this Court. 6. It is submitted that even if the petitioner is not entitled for rebate by way of cash refund, the petitioner is entitled for re-credit of the amount on the exports made and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner in these writ petitions, which are liable to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. 8. Refund of input tax credit on exports made under bond/LUT under Rule 5 of the ....