2023 (2) TMI 662

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ep Vaishnav ORDER These two writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioner herein for assailing the common order dated 01.03.2021 passed by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, whereby the revisions preferred by the petitioner against rejection of its rebate claims under Section 35 EE of the Central Excise Act were dismissed and the order dated 10.10.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Central Goods and Service Tax(CESTAT), Jodhpur rejecting the claim for refund of rebate of the petitioner were affirmed. The claims filed by the petitioner were rejected as being time barred as the same were preferred beyond the period of limitation of one year a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of delay and as being time barred. Per contra, learned counsel Shri Kuldeep Vaishnav representing the department, has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sansera Engineering Limited. vs. Deputy Commissioner, Large Tax Payer Unit, Bengaluru decided on 29.11.2022 and urged that Hon'ble Supreme Court vide this judgment overruled all the judgments relied upon by the petitioner's counsel. Hence, the petitioner's writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned orders and the other material placed on record. We are of the firm view that the plea raised by the petition....