AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 127
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....26 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "The petitioner therefore respectfully prays that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and: (i) By an appropriate writ or direction, the order impugned dated 06.12.2018 (Annexure-P/1) passed by Revisional Authority may kindly be quashed and set aside; (ii) It may kindly be held that once the actual consumption has been verified after following statutory provisions/notifications SION norms cannot be applied in determining the wastage. (iii) By an appropriate writ or direction, the impugned order dated 30.09.2016 (Annexure-P/10) passed by the appellate authority may also be quashed. (iv) By an appropriate writ or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... .that ratio of consumption of material in the manufacture of exported goods may be worked out taking into account the wastage prescribed in the relevant SION norms/CBEC Circular dated 29.05.2005 in case wastage shown by the appellants on higher side. It was also observed in the order that the rebate cannot be denied on the ground of non-filing of declaration of some inputs if use of said inputs in the manufacture of exported goods was not in dispute and the duty paid inputs were received directly from the factory of manufacture/registered dealer as prescribed under Notification 21/04-CE (NT) dated 06.09.2004." Thereafter, on 17.07.2012, a corrigendum was issued, to the following effect: "CORRIGENDUM Last three lines i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order directing applicability of SION norms is not correct because SION norms do not prescribe the wastage as the actual quantity of wastage depends on various parameters and there is no law to apply the SION norms in cases where the manufacturer/exporter has declared the actual input-output ratio which was verified by the department as per the notification dated 06.09.2004. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned orders are against Rule 18 of the Rules, 2002, because limiting the rebate entitlement, contrary to these provisions is unlawful, and therefore, the impugned orders are not justified in law. 3.2. It was also submitted that this Hon'ble Court vide ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eas Traders Vs Director General of Foreign Trade (Civil Appeal No. 1426 of 2001, decided on 11.09.2006), and in the case of Commissioner of Custom Kandla Vs Man Industries Ltd (I.A. Nos 13-16 of 2014 in Civil Appeal Nos. 9726-9729 of 2014, decided on 21.04.2015). 4.2. It was further submitted that as per the aforesaid case law, the order dated 02.11.2016 passed by this Hon'ble Court is distinguishable and not applicable in the present case. 5. It was also submitted that the Adjudicating Authority, Appellate Authority, as well as Revisional Authority have correctly interpreted the rules as per the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and thereafter, passed the impugned orders, which are justified in law. 6. Heard learn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "CORRIGENDUM Last three lines i.e. of para 8.2 of the above order may read as under: "The ratio of consumption of materials on the manufacturing of export products may be worked out taking into account the wastage prescribed in the relevant SION norms CBEC Circular dated 29- 05-1995 if the wastage shown by application is found on higher side."" 8.1. This Court also observes that after the said order, the department passed the recovery order in question and the order dated 26.07.2011 and amended corrigendum dated 17.07.2012 were not challenged before any higher authority, thus, the same had attained finality. This Court further observes that vide the order dated 02.11.2016 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2....