2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned show cause notices issued by the second respondent proposing to reject the petitioner's claim for refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. On a reading of the impugned show cause notices, it is clear that the second respondent appears to have been inspired by the order passed by this Court in the case of M/s.Raghav Industries Limited, Tiruchengode Vs. Union of India [W.P.No.1226 of 2016 dated 19.2.2016]. By referring to the said decision, the second respondent proposed that the petitioner is not entitled to avail rebate, as they have already availed higher duty drawback. Therefore, it was opined that by availing rebate, which has now been made as a refund claim, the petitioner would be enjoying double benefit.
4. As against the order in W.P.No.1226 of 2016 dated 19.2.2016, the assessee filed an appeal in W.A.No.429 of 2016, the matter was heard by the Hon'ble Division Bench and judgment has been reserved.
5. The learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submit that on facts, the decision in the case of M/s.Raghav Industries Limited will not apply to the petitioner's case.
6. If that is the fair stand taken by the Revenue, then the basis for issuing the impugned show cause notices has gone and this is sufficient to set aside the impugned show cause notices. However, it has to be made clear that as a result of setting aside the impugned show cause notices, it does not amount to granting a direction to the respondents to refund the amount claimed by the petitioner. The refund applications will have to be considered in accordance with law.
7. Thus, placing on record the stand taken by the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents that the decision in the case of M/s.Raghav Industries Limited will not apply to the petitioner's case, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned show cause notices are set aside, leaving it open to the respondent Department to proceed afresh in accordance with law. It is made clear that the factual and legal issues pleaded by the petitioner and raised in the counter affidavits are left open to be agitated at the appropriate time. No costs. Consequently, all connected pending WMPs are closed.
07.11.2017 Internet : Yes RS T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J RS WP.Nos.29698 to 29700 of 2016 etc. cases 07.11.2017