The Bombay High Court, in the case of Volvo Group India Pvt Ltd and Siemens Ltd, is set to examine whether filing a declaration and maintaining an input-output ratio is a pre-condition for claiming an excise rebate on exported goods.
This case arose from multiple writ petitions, where the petitioners challenged the rejection of their rebate claims by the Revisionary Authority under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. These claims were primarily filed under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and pertained to rebates on duty paid for raw materials used in exported goods.
Unlock Expertise in Tax Audits under Section 44AB – Enroll Now
The petitioners argued that they should not be required to file separate declarations or maintain an input-output ratio to claim such rebates. The Union of India, through its Ministry of Finance, had initially rejected these claims based on several grounds, including procedural lapses related to the non-filing of these documents.
In all the petitions the averment is that the impugned order passed by the Revisionary Authority has been issued within the jurisdiction of this Court. The office of the Revisionary Authority is within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court, as it observed and the entire cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, the bench noted.
Therefore, this Court acknowledged its jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of the petition.
The Bombay High Court, while addressing the preliminary objections on jurisdiction and other legal aspects, adjourned the case for further consideration on merits.
Unlock Expertise in Tax Audits under Section 44AB – Enroll Now
It was observed by the Division Bench of the Court comprising Justices K R Shriram and Jitendra Jain that, “Prior to the amendment of Article 226 and the insertion of Article 226(2), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically held that on account of the principle of the doctrine of merger, a writ against an order of the Appellate Authority, would lie only before the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the Appellate Authority is located. This principle would continue to hold the field today. Vide the insertion of Article 226(2), jurisdiction was bestowed upon the High Courts to issue writs to authorities located outside their territorial jurisdiction as long as the cause of action arose within their territorial jurisdiction.”
“Consequently, even the High Court within whose jurisdiction the original lis arose could now issue writs to the Appellate Authority located outside its territorial jurisdiction. However, this would not in any way denude the powers of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the Appellate Authority is located to issue writs. The fact remains that the appellate order is a significant part of the cause of action for petitioner”, the bench noted.
Unlock Expertise in Tax Audits under Section 44AB – Enroll Now
It noted that excise rebate claims fall under the purview of Section 35EE and do not necessitate prior declaration or specific ratio filings unless mandated under specific circumstances. The matter is now set for further hearings to deliberate on the substantive merits of the rebate claims
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
