TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (2) TMI 128
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of facts and law are involved. Therefore, both the petitioner and the respondents agreed that both the writ petitions may be taken up together and disposed of. 2.The petitioner in both the writ petitions is the Company manufacturing Centrifugal pumps which are excisable goods under Tariff Act 30A of the first schedule to Central Excise Act, 1944. Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules allowed rebate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4A applications filed by the petitioner-Company and filed along with the goods to the Customs Department, Customs House at Madras should have been, accordingly, endorsed certifying as to the factum of exports and returned by the Customs Department to be presented before the Central Excise Authorities for preferring the claim for rebate of excise duty on the excisable goods exported by the petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the first respondent rejecting the claim on the ground that the presentation of the application for export with the endorsement of the Customs was not complied with, thereby the conditions of Notification No. 187/62 and the procedure under Chapter IX of the Central Excise Rules were not complied with and hence the exporter had not proved the factum of shipment as required under Rule 12 of the Cen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and as confirmed by the order in appeal and to grant the claim of rebate to the petitioner. 5.Heard. The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that there is a provision to prefer a revision to Central Government under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner are not maintainable and it cannot invoke the jurisdiction under Articl....