1998 (2) TMI 128

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....one and the same and common question 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the relevant bills of lading. The AR-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 e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioner claiming rebate were disposed of by 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 ship....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntral Excise, the first respondent who has 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 i....