w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Triputi Steel Traders v/s Assistant Commr. of C. Ex., Nagpur


Company & Directors' Information:- S A L STEEL LIMITED [Active] CIN = L29199GJ2003PLC043148

Company & Directors' Information:- I S G TRADERS LIMITED [Active] CIN = L51909WB1943PLC011567

Company & Directors' Information:- M TO M TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U51100GJ2005PTC046435

Company & Directors' Information:- M M S STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109TZ1996PTC006849

Company & Directors' Information:- TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909GJ2001PTC040133

Company & Directors' Information:- G. O. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100PB2007PTC031033

Company & Directors' Information:- I P TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2003PTC097400

Company & Directors' Information:- A N TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U55101DL1994PTC060786

Company & Directors' Information:- TRADERS LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1948PLC010149

Company & Directors' Information:- B. S. TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120DL1981PTC116873

Company & Directors' Information:- K R TRADERS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909AS1987PTC002815

Company & Directors' Information:- J M G STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27105BR1992PTC004985

Company & Directors' Information:- H L STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27107AS1992PTC003726

Company & Directors' Information:- K V M STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29141DL1988PTC031248

Company & Directors' Information:- K STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27104JH1973PTC000998

Company & Directors' Information:- R. J. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28112MH2009PTC193047

Company & Directors' Information:- M M STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27107MH2001PTC131270

Company & Directors' Information:- D L J P TRADERS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1991PTC052047

Company & Directors' Information:- D G TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC064431

Company & Directors' Information:- R. D. TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED. [Active] CIN = U17200MH2007PTC170419

Company & Directors' Information:- G. D. TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109DL2008PTC177251

Company & Directors' Information:- R G S TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65921CH1992PTC012297

Company & Directors' Information:- B L STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1981PTC034021

Company & Directors' Information:- K V TRADERS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U17297WB1989PTC047906

Company & Directors' Information:- STEEL TRADERS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1938PTC009345

Company & Directors' Information:- R K G STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109DL2004PTC128852

Company & Directors' Information:- M L STEEL TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2009PTC133629

Company & Directors' Information:- V B STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28112MH2010PTC211691

Company & Directors' Information:- I B STEEL COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28910MH2010PTC211344

Company & Directors' Information:- M L TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01404PB2009PTC033017

Company & Directors' Information:- A R TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01404PB2009PTC033018

Company & Directors' Information:- O. P. TRADERS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51497PB1994PLC014170

Company & Directors' Information:- S A P TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909HR2011PTC042479

Company & Directors' Information:- J S C STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27106UP2013PTC061568

Company & Directors' Information:- R P TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109WB1998PTC086732

Company & Directors' Information:- S. M. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101MH2013PTC239811

Company & Directors' Information:- R K P STEEL LTD [Active] CIN = L27109WB1980PLC033206

Company & Directors' Information:- C P STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100WB2008PTC127447

Company & Directors' Information:- R R TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109UP1991PTC013245

Company & Directors' Information:- A. K. J. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28112WB2010PTC144880

Company & Directors' Information:- D & T TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC063612

Company & Directors' Information:- C D STEEL PVT LTD [Under Liquidation] CIN = U27109WB1981PTC034340

Company & Directors' Information:- T M S STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U02710TZ1996PTC007498

Company & Directors' Information:- V A TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1990PTC039480

Company & Directors' Information:- R K M TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB2008PTC130202

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND R TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909AS2006PTC008176

Company & Directors' Information:- S K TRADERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U17299WB1989PTC046495

Company & Directors' Information:- P M R STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51102DL2003PTC122675

Company & Directors' Information:- C T STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27109WB2005PTC106634

Company & Directors' Information:- P G STEEL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U24111AS1998PTC005409

Company & Directors' Information:- S D TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909PB2010PTC034457

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND S STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090DL1987PTC027835

Company & Directors' Information:- A G TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1947PTC001282

Company & Directors' Information:- M U TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U51900AS2008PTC008853

Company & Directors' Information:- T. P. TRADERS PVT. LTD. [Active] CIN = U25209WB1995PTC068943

Company & Directors' Information:- N. L. TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52100UP2012PTC049307

Company & Directors' Information:- P T TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120AS1999PTC005836

Company & Directors' Information:- TRADERS & TRADERS PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1992PTC055444

Company & Directors' Information:- J S STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52190CT1978PTC001432

Company & Directors' Information:- S K TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51109KL2003PTC016071

Company & Directors' Information:- U M STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27209TN1986PTC013670

Company & Directors' Information:- S AND H TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U51909KL1998PTC012688

Company & Directors' Information:- L N STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27310WB2007PTC118206

Company & Directors' Information:- M & I TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109MP2008PTC020491

Company & Directors' Information:- L. K. TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50400HR2011PTC043898

Company & Directors' Information:- K. D. W. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28910UP2011PTC043976

Company & Directors' Information:- R. N. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100WB2007PTC116588

Company & Directors' Information:- P M STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27105MP1982PTC001915

Company & Directors' Information:- M R STEEL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100TG2013PTC088808

Company & Directors' Information:- A V TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909AS2010PTC009934

Company & Directors' Information:- C K STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29150WB1975PTC030259

Company & Directors' Information:- P G TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120UP2011PTC043805

Company & Directors' Information:- R C TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999UP2016PTC085068

Company & Directors' Information:- M K G TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51494DL2008PTC183965

Company & Directors' Information:- K STEEL & COMPANY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1991PTC053960

Company & Directors' Information:- S L TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15109UP1987PTC008981

Company & Directors' Information:- K N TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51109DL1984PTC017665

Company & Directors' Information:- N S STEEL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27106PB1980PTC004266

Company & Directors' Information:- S R TRADERS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1985PTC039063

Company & Directors' Information:- B P TRADERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U28931WB1980PTC032693

Company & Directors' Information:- K A TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC060650

Company & Directors' Information:- A M TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52100DL1993PTC054323

Company & Directors' Information:- V D M TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51392KL2003PTC016586

Company & Directors' Information:- V C TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51496KL2005PTC018548

Company & Directors' Information:- J AND J TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U19129UP1992PTC014356

Company & Directors' Information:- R C STEEL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U28112AS1980PTC001811

Company & Directors' Information:- B AND M TRADERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U52321TN1988PTC016066

Company & Directors' Information:- A V V S TRADERS PVT LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U51102TN1988PTC016437

Company & Directors' Information:- V M TRADERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U05001UP1990PTC011859

Company & Directors' Information:- A P TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17297UP1994PTC016102

Company & Directors' Information:- P D STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC038426

Company & Directors' Information:- A K STEEL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1961PTC003566

Company & Directors' Information:- H S P STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27100MH2013PTC242983

Company & Directors' Information:- A A TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1964PTC004250

Company & Directors' Information:- A V B TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MH2003PTC138973

Company & Directors' Information:- D H STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27109RJ2012PTC039742

Company & Directors' Information:- R K TRADERS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U31200MH1976PTC018744

Company & Directors' Information:- D AND P TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52322PN2009PTC133581

Company & Directors' Information:- M M TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51500MH1975PTC018056

Company & Directors' Information:- N R TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51900MH2005PTC157670

Company & Directors' Information:- R K TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U23201MH1976PTC018743

Company & Directors' Information:- R A STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MH2014PTC253625

Company & Directors' Information:- M. P. TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2016PTC215988

Company & Directors' Information:- A & T TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900CH2015PTC035530

Company & Directors' Information:- B M TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909CH2010PTC032424

Company & Directors' Information:- N. V. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27310DL2009PTC186541

Company & Directors' Information:- K. D. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28939DL2012PTC244467

Company & Directors' Information:- U R TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC056950

Company & Directors' Information:- L M TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51497DL2014PTC274205

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL2014PTC269271

Company & Directors' Information:- M G TRADERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51101KA2012PTC066173

Company & Directors' Information:- V S TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U23109GJ2002PTC040842

Company & Directors' Information:- STEEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00349KA1958PTC001309

Company & Directors' Information:- D & R TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL1996PTC081454

Company & Directors' Information:- R S TRADERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U24119WB1980PTC033197

Company & Directors' Information:- A. L. TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2000PTC105282

Company & Directors' Information:- K S TRADERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909PB1990PTC010753

Company & Directors' Information:- P S TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U92490TN1979PTC007957

Company & Directors' Information:- S P TRADERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1985PTC038361

Company & Directors' Information:- S S TRADERS AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65923DL1959PTC003031

Company & Directors' Information:- A K L TRADERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909MP1989PTC005014

Company & Directors' Information:- TRADERS LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1951PLC010277

    W.A. No. 523 of 2018

    Decided On, 25 July 2018

    At, High Court of Chhattisgarh

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE RAJANI DUBEY

    For the Appellant: Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate. For the Respondent: Vinay Pandey, Advocate.



Judgment Text


Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 104-2018 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.T. No. 2994/2011 by which the petitioner's petition has been dismissed.

2. Brief resumption of quintessential facts, necessary for deciding the petition are that the petitioner, a registered merchant exporter and engaged in export of R.N. Steel products, submitted an application under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 2002') read with notification dated 6-9-2004 ('relevant notification' in short) claiming refund/rebate of duty paid on goods exported. The application was rejected by the first respondent which was affirmed by the appellate authority and thereafter, affirmed by the revisional authority also giving rise to this petition. Before the Learned Single Judge, writ petitioner sought to assail the order on the ground that the scheme of rebate being a beneficial exemption to promote exports, require liberal interpretation and mere non-submission of some of the required documents, in the present case, ARE-1 (application) for removal of cause for export would not ipso facto result in rejection of claim. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Mumbai v. M. Ambalal & Company reported in 2010 (13) SCALE 266 = 2010 (260) E.L.T. 487 (S.C.), it was submitted that the requirement of submission of ARE-1 is merely procedural and not substantive legal requirement therefore if some reason, ARE-1 was not submitted, the authority was required to evaluate other collateral documentary evidence while examining the claim of rebate.

3. The stand taken by the Counsel for Revenue is that the requirement of production of original copy of ARE-1 is a mandatory requirement to establish that the goods have suffered duty at the time of removal from the factory of manufacture and further that they are actually exported.

4. The argument that non-submission of ARE-1 was mere technical breach, did not find favour. Learned single Judge, referring to Rule 18 of Rules, 2002 and the relevant notification as also judgment of the Supreme Court in M. Ambalal (supra) held that the pre-condition to seek rebate was of mandatory nature and non-submission of the same render the claim for rebate is liable to be rejected.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, relying upon (Government of India & Others v. Indian Tobacco Association reported in AIR 2005 SC 3685 : 2005 (187) E.L.T. 162 (S.C.); Formica India Division & Others v. Collector of Central Excise & Others reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 552 : 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511 (S.C.) Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Others reported in AIR 1992 SC 152 : 1991 (55) E.L.T. 437 (S.C.); Union of India v. Bharat Aluminium Co. reported in 2011 (263) E.L.T. 48 (Chhattisgarh); Zandu Chemicals Limited v. Union of India reported in 2015 (315) E.L.T. 520 (Bom.); Union of India v. Farheen Texturisers reported in 2015 (323) E.L.T. 104 (Bom.); Tablets India Ltd. v. Jt. Secy., GOI [2010 (259) E.L.T. 191 (Mad.)]; Raj Petro Specialties v. Union of India & Others reported in 2017 (345) E.L.T. 496 (Guj.) and UM Cables Limited v. Union of India & Others reported in 2013 (293) E.L.T. 641 (Bom.) argued in extenso to convince the Court that the requirement of submission of ARE-1 is merely procedural in form and not substantive legal requirement and even when such document ARE-1 is not produced, the other collateral documentary evidence in proof of the fact that the goods were duty paid and actually exported are required to be examined by the authority and in appropriate case, where the other extrinsic evidence is found reliable, application for rebate ought to be allowed rather than rejecting his claim on technical breach of non-production of ARE-1.

6. Learned Counsel for the Revenue emphasized upon the policy as laid down in the Rules of 2002, insofar as the claim of rebate is concerned, by submitting that the object of the scheme is not merely procedural but a substantive one aimed at ensuring that there is due and proper certification of the goods having been duty paid on the actual export. According to him, this is also aimed at making enquiry effective and summary and at the same time, based on authentic documents, thereby ensuring efficiency of the administrative process and at the same time, ensuring that fake and forged claim of rebate, based on unverified statements and doubtful documents are not allowed to take its course to pierce into the administrative check against forged claims. He would submit that the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of M. Ambalal, relied upon by the Learned single judge holds the field.

7. In the present case, the petitioner, as is evident from the order (Annexure P-4) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, submitted following documents :

"(3) Self-attested Xerox copy of Invoices No. TST/2007-2008/001 and TST/2007-2008/002 both dated 2-1-2008. TST/2007-2008/003, TST/2007-2008/004, TST/2007-2008/005, dated 3-1-2008, TST/2007-2008/006, TST/2007-2008/007, TST/2007-2008/008, dated 15-1-2008, TST/2007-2008/008, dated 16-1-2008, TST/2007-2008/009, dated 21-1-2008 and TST/2007-2008/010, dated 7-3-2008.

(4) Self-attested Xerox copy of Shipping Bill No. 000091, dated 3-1-2008, 000145, dated 5-1-2008, 000438, dated 16-1-2008, 000439, dated 16-1-2008, 000615, dated 21-1-2008, 000481, dated 17-1-2008 and 002105, dated 10-3-2008.

(3) Self-attested Xerox copy of Bill of Lading No. SAFM-750505055, dated 4-22008 SAFM-524844017, dated 15-2-2008, SAFM-524866198, dated 20-2-2008, SAFM-750505052, dated 4-2-2008 and SAFM-750549328, dated 25-3-2008.

(4) Bank Realization Certificate.

(5) Disclaimer Certificate."

All the authorities while scrutinizing the claim of the appellant took the view that on account of non-production of ARE-1 document and other evidence of duty paid export being not reliable, claim is liable to be rejected.

8. Insofar as the requirement of submission of ARE-1 document is concerned, it is required to be examined whether the said requirement is substantive as to make it mandatory and non-compliance thereof fatal to the claim for rebate or a directory so that in appropriate case, it may be held to be open for the assessee to claim rebate by producing other collateral documentary evidence of duty paid goods exported by him through various modes of export.

9. The claim of rebate in cases of Export is governed by the provisions contained in Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 which provides for rebate of duty and reads thus :

"18. Rebate of duty : Where any goods are exported, the Central Government may, by notification, grant rebate of duty paid on such excisable goods or duty paid on materials used in the manufacture or processing of such goods and the rebate shall be subject to such conditions or limitations, if any, and fulfilment of such procedure, as may be specified in the notification."

The statutory notification issued by the department on 6-9-2004 however provides as to in what manner the grant of rebate shall be regulated and lays down the procedure thereof which includes the requirement of submitting various documents. The said notification dated 6-9-2004 is reproduced as below :

"In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and in supersession of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Notification No. 40/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated the 26-6-2001 [GSR 469(E), dated the 26th June, 2001] insofar as it relates to export to the countries other than Nepal and Bhutan, the Central Government hereby directs that there shall be granted rebate of the whole of the duty paid on all excisable goods falling under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), exported to any country other than Nepal and Bhutan, subject to the conditions, limitations and procedures specified in this notifications."

As per Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 as amended, admissible quantified rebate of Cenvat and Education Cess paid on the goods exported is available to the claimant, subject to fulfilment of the conditions and procedures.

3. As per procedure prescribed in para 8.3 of part-1 of Chapter 8 of said Supplementary Instructions, the following documents are required for filing of Rebate claims.

(i) A request on the letterhead of the exporter containing claim of rebate, ARE-1 Nos. and dates, corresponding Invoice Nos. and dates, amount of rebate on each ARE-1 and its calculation,

(ii) original copy of ARE-1

(iii) invoice issued under Rule 11.

(iv) self-attested copy of Shipping Bill and

(v) self-attested copy of Bill of Lading

(vi) Disclaimer Certification (in case where the claimant is other than exporter).

10. Conjoint reading of Rule 18 and the relevant notification reveals that under the scheme of law, grant of rebate is subject to conditions or limitations, if any, and fulfilment of said procedure as may be specified in the notification. The notification then lays down the conditions as also the procedure. The conditions as stated in the notification is that there shall be granted rebate of the whole of the duty paid on all excisable goods falling under the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), exported to any country other than Nepal and Bhutan, subject to the conditions, limitations and procedures specified in the notification. Therefore, the substantive part of the provision relating to entitlement to grant of rebate provides that rebate of all the duty to be paid to certain category of certain excisable goods would be available if they are exported, excluding two countries. The substantive law with regard to entitlement is therefore mandatory and no rebate would be available under the law unless goods are exported. Secondly, rebate would be available only on certain category of excisable goods and not on all. This part of the notification constitutes a mandatory requirement. The notification in clause 3 thereof, lays down the procedure for filing of rebate claims. It includes various documents which are required to be submitted along with rebate claims. We however, find that under Rule 18, grant of rebate is subject not only to conditions of rebate but also subject to fulfilment of procedure specified in the notification. It necessarily includes submission of various documents.

11. In the light of the aforesaid scheme of law it is required to be seen whether the requirement of submission of ARE-1 form is mandatory or mere directory.

12. Ordinarily speaking, the provisions of taxing statute are required to be strictly construed. Further where a taxing statute provides for certain exemptions or rebates subject to certain conditions, those pre-conditions, fulfilment of which entitles a person to rebate or exemption from taxes or duty are also mandatory. However, in appropriate cases, a play may be allowed, in so far as the procedure through which the required conditions are to be fulfilled to claim rebate/exemption.

13. In the present case, on the face of Rule 18, which specifies pre-condition for grant of rebate, it should also be held to be mandatory.

If the Rule itself requires the fulfilment of pre-condition for grant of rebate, it would amount to doing violence to the plain language of the statute to hold otherwise that fulfilment of requirements would not be a mandatory pre-condition.

14. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Suksha International and Nutan Gems and Others reported in AIR 1989 SC 690 : 1989 (39) E.L.T. 503 (S.C.) wherein one of the issues was whether certain limitations should be held to be mandatory or not. What impelled their Lordships in the Supreme Court to hold that the provision was directory is as below :

"Acceptance of the interpretation suggested by Shri Subba Rao would, in our opinion, unduly restrict the scope of the beneficial provision and, in many instances which would otherwise fall within the beneficial scope of the policy in para 185(4), take away with one hand what the policy gives with the other."

It is thus clear that in that case what was found was that the interpretation suggested unduly restrict the scope of these provision and amounted to take away benefit.

15. The other decision relied upon is in the case of Formica India Division, Bombay, Burma Trading Corporation Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise and Others & Formica India v. Union of India & Others reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 552 = 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511 (S.C.). Again on facts it was found that once the Tribunal took the view that the assessee was liable to pay duty on the intermediary product he would be entitled to the benefit of notification without insisting on technical consequences of Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Strong reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Others reported in AIR 1992 SC 152 as in that judgment the Court was considering the provisions relating to admissibility of the benefits of exemption. The question which fell for consideration was as below :

"Appellant, it is not in dispute, had the necessary eligibility under the original exemption notification of 1969. The controversy is confined only to the question of the manner of effectuating the refund of sales tax that appellant, admittedly, was entitled to."

16. While deciding the issue as to whether the provision was mandatory or directory, their Lordships examined the legal position keeping in view the law laid down in the earlier decision in the case of Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Calcutta reported in 1965 (3) SCR 626 and held thus :

"11. We have given our careful consideration to these submissions. We are afraid the stand of the Revenue suffers from certain basic fallacies, besides being wholly technical. In Kedarnath's case, the question for consideration was whether the requirement of the declaration under the proviso to Section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales-tax) Act, 1941, could be established by evidence aliunde. The Court said that the intention of the Legislature was to grant exemption only upon the satisfaction of the substantive condition of the provision and the condition in the proviso was held to be of substance embodying considerations of policy. Shri Narasimha Murthy would say the position in the present case was no different. He says that the notification of 11th August 1975 was statutory in character and the condition as to 'prior-permission' for adjustment stipulated therein must also be held to be statutory. Such a condition must, says counsel, be equated with the requirement of production of the declaration form in Kedarnath's case and thus understood the same consequences should ensure for the on-compliance. Shri Narasimhamurthy says that there was no way out of this situation and no adjustment was permissible, whatever be the other remedies of the appellant. There is a fallacy in the emphasis of this argument. The consequence which Shri Narasimha Murthy suggests should flow from the non-compliance would, indeed, be the result if the condition was a substantive one and one fundamental to the policy underlying the exemption. Its stringency and mandatory nature must be justified by the purpose intended to be served. The mere fact that it is statutory does not matter one way or the other. There are conditions and conditions. Some may be substantive, mandatory and based on considerations of policy and some others may merely belong to the area of procedure. It will be erroneous to attach equal importance to the non-observance of all conditions irrespective of the purposes they were intended to serve."

In another decision, in the case of Govt. of India and Others v. Indian Tobacco Association reported in AIR 2005 SC 3685 the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Parle Export Pvt. Limited [1988 (38) E.L.T. 741 (S.C.)], were taken into consideration in para 20 of the said decision which we feel it appropriate to reproduce/quote herein below :

In M/s. Parle Exports (supra), it was observed :

"17. The notification must be read as a whole in the context of the other relevant provisions. When a notification is issued in accordance with power conferred by the statute, it has statutory force and validity and, therefore, the exemption under the notification is as if it were contained in the Act itself. See in this connection the observations of this Court in Orient Weaving Mills (P) Ltd. v. Union of India. See also Kailash Nath v. State of U.P. The principle is well settled that when two views of a notification are possible, it should be construed in favour of the subject as notification is part of a fiscal enactment. But in this connection, it is well to remember the observations of the Judicial Committee in Coroline M. Armytage v. Frederick Wilkinson that it is only, however, in the event of there being a real difficulty in ascertaining the meaning of a particular enactment that the question of strictness or of liberality of construction arises. The Judicial Committee reiterated in the said decision at p. 369 of the report that in a taxing Act provisions establishing (sic enacting) an exception to the general rule of taxation are to be construed strictly against those who invoke its benefit. While interpreting an exemption clause, liberal interpretation should be imparted to the language thereof, provided no violence is done to the language employed. It must, however, be borne in mind that absurd results of construction should be avoided."

17. Apart from the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, strong reliance has been placed on the decisions of High Court of Mumbai as well as High Court of Gujarat wherein the issue relating to requirement of submission of ARE-1 document directly came up for consideration. In the case of U.M. Cables Limited v. Union of India & Others reported in AIR 1989 SC 690 [2013 (293) E.L.T. 641 (Bom.)], upon examination of the scheme of the Rule in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Others, it was held as below :

13. A distinction between those regulatory provisions which are of a substantive character and those which are merely procedural or technical has been made in a judgment of the Supreme Court in Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner. The Supreme Court held that the mere fact that a provision is contained in a statutory instruction "does not matter one way or the other". The Supreme Court held that non-compliance of a condition which is substantive and fundamental to the policy underlying the grant of an exemption would result in an invalidation of the claim. On the other hand, other requirements may merely belong to the area of procedure and it would be erroneous to attach equal importance to the non-observance of all conditions irrespective of the purposes which they were intended to serve 2. The Supreme Court held as follows :

"The mere fact that it is statutory does not matter one way or the other. There are conditions and conditions. Some may be substantive, mandatory and based on considerations of policy and some other may merely belong to the area of procedure. It will be erroneous to attach equal importance to the non-observance of all conditions irrespective of the purposes they were intended to serve."

14. The particulars which are contained in Form ARE-1 relate to the manufacturer of the goods, the number and description of the packages, the 1991 (55) E.L.T. 437 (S.C.) 2 at paragraph 11.

PNP 9/11 WP3102-24.4 weight, marks and quantity of the goods and the description of the goods. Similarly, details are provided in regard to the value, duty, the number and date of invoice and the amount of rebate claimed. Part A contains a certification by the central excise officer to the effect inter alia that duty has been paid on the goods and that the goods have been examined. Part B contains a certification by the officer of the customs of the shipment of the goods under his supervision.

15. In the situation in the two writ petitions, the rebate claims that were filed by the Petitioner would have to be duly bifurcated. As noted earlier the first writ petition relates to two claims dated 20 March, 2009 and 8 April, 2009 in the total value of Rs. 12.54 lacs. In respect of the second of those claims dated 8 April, 2009, of a value of Rs. 10.08 lacs, the Petitioner has averred that the goods were loaded by the Shipping Line on the vessel and the vessel sailed on 18 April, 2008 whereas the Let Export Order was passed by the customs authorities on 19 April 2008. The Petitioner has stated that in view of this position the customs authorities withheld the endorsement of the ARE-1 forms and the issuance of the export promotion copy of the shipping bill 4. We find merit in the contention of counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue that in these circumstances, the rejection of the rebate claim dated 8 April 2009 by the adjudicating authority and which was confirmed in appeal and in revision cannot be faulted. Admittedly even accordingly to the Petitioner the goods came to be exported and the vessel had sailed on 18 April, 2008 even before a Let Export Order was passed by the customs authorities. The primary requirement of the identity of the goods exported was therefore, in our view, not fulfilled. In such a case, it cannot be said that a fundamental requirement regarding the export of the goods and of the duty paid character of the goods was satisfied."

18. The aforesaid view has been succinctly taken in various decisions cited before us. The High Court of Gujarat has also taken similar view as has been taken by High Court of Mumbai regarding the nature of submission of ARE-1 document for availing rebate on duty paid goods exported.

In the case of M. Ambalal, the law relating to the principles applicable in the matter of interpretation of exemption provisions were laid down as below :

"10. It is settled law that the notification has to be read as a whole. If any of the conditions laid down in the notification is not fulfilled, the party is not entitled to the benefit of that notification. The rule regarding exemptions is that exemptions should generally be strictly interpreted but beneficial exemptions having their purpose as encouragement or promotion of certain activities should be liberally interpreted. This composite rule is not stated in any particular judgment in so many words. In fact, majority of judgments emphasize that exemptions are to be strictly interpreted while some of them insist that exemptions in fiscal Statutes are to be liberally interpreted giving an apparent impression that they are contradictory to each other. But this is only apparent. A close scrutiny will reveal that there is no real contradiction amongst the Judgments at all. The synthesis of the view is quite clearly that the general rule is strict interpretation while special rule in the case of beneficial and promotional exemption is liberal interpretation. The two go very well with each other because they relate to two different sets of circumstances".

Therefore, general rule is strict interpretative while special rule in the case of beneficial and promotional exemption is liberal interpretation.

19. In the present case, what we find is that while rebates can be allowed only when it is proved by the assessee that he has paid the duty on goods exported and the goods are those specified in the provision itself, it is necessary to fulfil pre-conditions to avail rebate by furnishing documents which are enumerated in the notification.

20. At this juncture, we must give our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the Counsel for the Revenue that there is definite purpose behind requirement of submission of ARE-1 document and it takes care of due and proper certification by excise authorities, customs authorities and postmasters with regard to the fact of goods being duty paid and actually exported. We cannot be oblivious to the submissions and the purpose behind submission of ARE-1 document. Ordinarily the assessee in order to claim rebate has to prove his entitlement by submission of the documents which are enumerated in the notification which includes ARE-1 document also.

21. Under instructions contained in Chapter 8 under the heading 'export under claim for rebate' of the Central Excise Law Manual 2011-2012 edition (53rd Edition), form Annexure-14 is the prescribed format of ARE-1 document. The first part deals with the application to be submitted by the assessee, containing various details of the goods, duty paid, etc. In the prescribed form of the application, there are three certifications also prescribed, contained in part-A and part-B. The third form contained in part-C relates to export by post whereas part-D prescribe the form of the refund order under the head 'sanction rebate'.

22. It would thus be seen that the purpose and object of requirement of submission of ARE-1 document is that the authority before whom claim of rebate is made, has an authentic certified information relating to duty paid goods and its export in the form of certification of the excise officer as well as customs officer and in case of export by post, by certification of postmaster. This is intended to put in place an effective machinery of disposal of rebate claims. It is with the object of prompt decision of rebate claims and at the same time, to ensure that fabricated or forged claims are not allowed to percolate to avoid payment of duty. We thus, find that there is considerable force in the submission of Learned Counsel for the Revenue that ordinarily the procedure prescribed for seeking rebate must be followed. We hold that ordinarily the procedure prescribed for seeking rebate must be followed which includes submission of various documents/certificates in prescribed forms including ARE-1 document.

23. It is only in appropriate cases where it is found that for such reasons which are satisfactory in the opinion of the authority due to which the assessee for reasons beyond his control could not submit ARE-1 document that he could be allowed to lead collateral documentary evidence in support of its claim for rebate. However, this procedure would only be an exception to the general rule. If we hold that despite all pre-conditions in the law, assessee will always have a choice either to submit ARE-1 document or to submit in collateral document for rebate, it would virtually render otiose the entire scheme and would in that process be doing violence to the requirement of law. Not only that, the process of evaluation and enquiry into verification of documentary evidence other than those required under the law may not only make the procedure of verification cumbersome but may also adversely affect efficiency of the working of the w

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

hole mechanism of decision on rebate applications. 24. Upon such consideration we are, therefore, inclined to hold that ordinarily, the requirements of fulfilment of pre-conditions as stated in Rule 18 read with relevant notification, as mandated are required to be fulfilled to avail rebate. However, in exceptional cases it is open for the assessee to prove claim of rebate by leading other collateral documentary evidence in support of entitlement of rebate. As we have noticed, it would only be an exception to the general rule and not a choice of the assessee to either submit ARE-1 document or to lead collateral documentary evidence. We would further hold that where an assessee seeks to establish claim for rebate without ARE-1 document or for that matter without submission of those documents which are specified in relevant notifications he is required to clearly state as to what was that reason beyond his control due to which he could not obtain ARE-1 document. In cases of the nature as was noticed in the decision of U.M. Cables Limited, the assessee would be required to file at least affidavit of having lost the document required to be submitted to claim rebate. It will then be a matter of enquiry by the authorities as to whether the reason assigned by the assessee are acceptable to allow him to lead collateral documentary evidence in support of its claim of rebate. But we wish to make it clear that under no circumstances, it can be treated as parallel system as it is not established procedure under the law. 25. Having so examined the legal position with regard to the requirement of submission of ARE-1 document, what we find from the order passed by the authority is that, in fact, the authority, while holding that the requirement of submission of ARE-1 document has not been fulfilled has actually taken into consideration the other collateral evidence furnished by the assessee before it as below : "Further on going through Shipping Bills, it is noticed that Shipping Bills were filled under "DEPB Scheme". The commercial invoices issued shows the declaration "Export under claim of rebate". But commercial invoice is not a proper document which can be considered for allowing the rebate being not issued under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 as stipulated. The bank realization certificate submitted for realization of sale proceeds does not indicate the co-relation of exported goods for which rebate claim has been filed." 26. It would thus be seen that even if we accept the argument of Learned Counsel for the appellant that only on the ground of non-submission of ARE-1 document the claim for rebate could not be rejected without taking into consideration other documents submitted by the assessee, we find that the authority has taken into consideration the other collateral evidences but it had also held that submission of ARE-1 document was essential requirement. Therefore we find ourselves unable to grant any relief to the petitioner in this writ appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

19-10-2020 M/s. VA Innova Alloy Steel Tech Pvt. Ltd. Versus Avinash Daga High Court of for the State of Telangana
21-08-2020 Indivar Traders Pvt. Ltd. Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
20-07-2020 M/s. Maa Sarala Multipurpose Cooperative Limited Versus Steel Authority of India & Another High Court of Orissa
09-06-2020 Bhupendra Suryawanshi Versus Sai Traders High Court of Madhya Pradesh
09-06-2020 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Versus Steel Authority of India, Chhattisgarh & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
04-06-2020 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Versus State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
02-06-2020 The Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata & Another Versus Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-05-2020 M/s. Renaissance Traders, Nagaland Versus State of Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
29-04-2020 Jindal Steel & Power Limited Versus State Tradings Corporation Of India Limited & Others High Court of Delhi
18-03-2020 Pahal Coal Traders Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus State of Meghalaya & Others High Court of Meghalaya
12-03-2020 Confederation of All India Traders, New Delhi Versus Competition Commission of India, New Delhi & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
06-03-2020 Food Corporation of India & Another Versus M/s. V.K. Traders & Others Supreme Court of India
04-03-2020 M/s. Commercial Steel Co. Versus ASC Sales Tax High Court of for the State of Telangana
25-02-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Ashok Kantilal Gandhi Vendor & Prop. of M/s Gunjan Traders High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-02-2020 Panch Tatva Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Versus GPT Steel Industries Ltd. (Through Resolution Professional) & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
24-02-2020 Maa Tarini Traders, District Raigarh (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
13-02-2020 The Commissioner of Central Excise, O/o. The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Salem Versus M/s. JSW Steel Ltd., M/s. JSW Power Ltd., Pottaneri, Mecheri High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-02-2020 M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd., Salem Steel Plant, Represented by its Deputy General Manager, Finance & Accounts, K. Sivaguru, Versus The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 M/s. Texcel International Pvt. Ltd., Sengundram Industrial Area (Near Ford India Ltd.,), Chengalpattu Versus M/s. Chennai Steel Tubes, Rep.by one of its Partner, G. Bhavanishankar High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-2 Versus M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. (Successor on amalgamation of JSW Ispat Steel Ltd.) High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-01-2020 State of Odisha & Others Versus M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
29-01-2020 Shahil Traders Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
21-01-2020 Jindal Steel & Power Limited, Raigarh & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
13-01-2020 M/s. Steel Authority Of India Ltd. Versus Kamladityya Construction Pvt Ltd. High Court of Jharkhand
06-01-2020 M/s. Rukminirama Steel Rollings Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus The State of Goa Through the Chief Secretary, Secretariat & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
03-01-2020 Allahabad Bank V/S Shri Balaji Traders and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
01-01-2020 Indian Overseas Bank V/S Sapthagiri Cotton Traders and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
24-12-2019 Shyam Steel Industries Limited Versus Shyam Sel & Power Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
16-12-2019 Selva's Steel Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-12-2019 Centre for Indian Trade Union (CITU), Head Load Workers Unit, Kottayi, Palakkad, Represented by Its Secretary & Others Versus Intercontinental Traders, Kottayi, Palakkad, Represented by Its Managing Director & Others High Court of Kerala
10-12-2019 Shalimar Iron and Steel Private Limited, Ramgarh Cantt. through its Director Rafat Praveen Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others High Court of Jharkhand
05-12-2019 M/s. Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd & Another Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
04-12-2019 M/s. Shriram Distribution Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. A.N. Traders Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
04-12-2019 M/s. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Rep. by its General Manager, V.S. Prasad Versus Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Project Director, Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-12-2019 Electrosteel Steel Ltd. & Others Versus M/s. STP Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-11-2019 HI-TEK Traders, Changanacherry, Represented by C.C. Joyichan, Managing Partner Versus Commercial Tax Officer, Changanacherry & Others High Court of Kerala
07-11-2019 A.S. Impex, Sole Proprietorship of Rutuparna Dole Versus M/s. Shree Durga Traders, Represented by its Partner, Mukesh Mahajan & Others High Court of Karnataka
06-11-2019 B. Basappa & Another Versus J.S.W. Steel Ltd., Bellary High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
04-11-2019 JSW Steel Limited Versus Government of Karnataka High Court of Karnataka
31-10-2019 Chitrahar Traders, Represented by its Proprietor, R. Krishnamoorthy, Tirupur Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Assessment Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-10-2019 M/s. Sangeetha Traders Represented by its Partner Santosh Kumar Lath, Alwarpet Versus T.A. Shanmugham, Proprietor, M/s. Sai Packaging Industries, Ambattur, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-10-2019 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 1 Versus NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
24-10-2019 Jindal Steel & Power Limited Versus Arun Kumar Jagatramka National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
22-10-2019 Steel Authority of India Limited Central Marketing Organization Through Assistant General Manager (Marketing) Regional Office, Maharashtra Versus Lalit Agrawal & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
22-10-2019 Vanit Gupta & Another Versus Delta Iron & Steel Company P. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-10-2019 JSW Steel Ltd. Versus Mahender Kumar Khandelwal & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
05-09-2019 M/s. S.S. Steel Industry Versus M/s. Shri Guru Hargobind Steels High Court of Delhi
03-09-2019 M/S S.D. Traders Commissioner of Income Tax & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
21-08-2019 Shree Daneshwari Traders V/S Sanjay Jain and Others. Supreme Court of India
21-08-2019 Ramesh Kumar Vishwakarma & Others Versus Steel Authority of India Limited Through Its Managing Director, Bhilai & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
08-08-2019 Mahavir Babagonda Patil & Others Versus M/s. Tirupati Traders, A Partnership Concern & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-08-2019 Fisan Traders & Another Versus Mollakkanakathu Usman Koya Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
07-08-2019 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus A.M. Traders & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-08-2019 Vettro Traders & Integrated Services, Represented by Its Managing Partner, P.A. Kunjumuhammed Versus The Sub Inspector of Police, Aroor Police Station & Others High Court of Kerala
01-08-2019 M/S Mamta Steel India Pvt. Ltd. Peepur Amethi Throu, Director & Another Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Civil Lines Allahabad High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
31-07-2019 M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. Versus Exalt Service Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
29-07-2019 M/s. Mangesh Mahalaxmi Traders, Shiribeedu, Rep. by its Proprietor, Ramachandra Kidiyoor Versus The Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Udupi & Another High Court of Karnataka
29-07-2019 M/S Vishwaleela Steel Tube Industries & Others Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
24-07-2019 Combined Traders Versus Commissioner of Trade & Taxes High Court of Delhi
16-07-2019 Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited, Mumbai Versus Abhishek Steel & Power Limited rep. by its Managing Director, Gopal Agarwal, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
12-07-2019 M/s. Hasbi Traders, Represented by its Proprietor, Sheik Dawood Versus The Chief Engineer / Distribution, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-07-2019 The Director, Steel Authority of India Limited Versus Ispat Khandan Janta Mazdoor Union Supreme Court of India
05-07-2019 Steel Authority of India Limited & Another Versus Jaggu & Others Supreme Court of India
05-07-2019 Thulja Traders, Rep.by its Power Agent, S.R. Guruprasad Versus M/s. Venkatesh Trading Company, Rep. by its Partner, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-07-2019 M/s. Shakti Traders Versus M.P. State Mining Corporation High Court of Madhya Pradesh
27-06-2019 Aswini Traders Versus The Director of Census Operation, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-06-2019 Sree Karthick Traders, Rep. by Partner S. Senkuttuvan Versus M/s. Adhithya Textiles Process, Rep. by its Partner N. Balasubramanian & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-06-2019 M/s. Steel Complex Limited, Wisco Manor, Calicut, Represented by The Managing Director Versus K.G. Subramania Iyer High Court of Kerala
13-06-2019 M/s. India Metal One Steel Plate Processing Private Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 2 (2) High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-05-2019 Petroleum Traders Welfare & Legal Service Society, Palarivattom, Represented by Its Chairman A.M. Saji & Others Versus Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
17-05-2019 Divisional Railway Manager, Waltair Railway Division & Another Versus A.I.E. Valley Traders Private Limited & Others High Court of Orissa
13-05-2019 Adwaita Prasad Biswal Versus Rourkela Steel Plant High Court of Orissa
09-05-2019 Dr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, Director (Retired), Geological Survey of India, Shillong Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of steel & Mines, Department of Mines, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
08-05-2019 M/s. Indus Steel & Alloys Ltd. Represented by its Director S.S. Srikanth & Others Versus D. Venkatesh Guptha & Others High Court of Karnataka
08-05-2019 M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur Supreme Court of India
02-05-2019 Ganpatlal Pawan Kumar Traders Private Ltd. Versus Reserve Bank of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
25-04-2019 Sadashiv Yashwant Kumbhar & Others Versus M/s. S.J. Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-04-2019 Hari Steel & General Industries Ltd. & Another Versus Daljit Singh & Others Supreme Court of India
18-04-2019 Steel Authority of India Limited, Unit: Iisco Steel Plant Versus Workmen of Steel Authority of India Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
15-04-2019 M/s. Popular Traders Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Others Supreme Court of India
10-04-2019 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Shraddha Traders National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-04-2019 Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Bangalore Versus M/s. Jsw Steel Ltd. (Formerly Known As Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Ltd.) Supreme Court of India
04-04-2019 M/s. Steel Park, Represented by its Partner A.S. Hasan Adbulcader, Valliyoor Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Nanguneri Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
04-04-2019 M/s. Paripooranam Steel Traders, Chennai Versus The Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-04-2019 M/s. Swastika Steel & Allied Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Kol-II Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Regional Bench Kolkata
01-04-2019 Steel Authority of India Limited & Another Versus International Commerce Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-04-2019 M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. JSW Steel Limited High Court of Judicature at Bombay
29-03-2019 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Panchmahal Steel Ltd. Supreme Court of India
26-03-2019 Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai II Commissionerate, Chennai Versus M/s. Kanishk Steel Industries Ltd., Gummidipoondi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-03-2019 MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S A & Another Versus BRG Iron & Steel Company Private Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
12-03-2019 State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Versus M/s. Global Steel Holding Limited & Others Supreme Court of India
08-03-2019 Kamal Kumar Bhuwalka, Managing Director M/S Bhuwalka Castings & Forgings Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/s. Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd) & Others Versus C.C.E. Bangalore Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
08-03-2019 Kamal Kumar Bhuwalka, Managing Director, M/s. Bhuwalka Castings & Forgings Pvt. Ltd (Formerly Known As M/s. Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd) & Others Versus C.C.E.-Bangalore Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
07-03-2019 Sahu Shivaji Versus Ma Sakti Steel Traders Proprietor Sujeet Jaiswal High Court of Chhattisgarh
05-03-2019 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 3 Versus Patel Alloy Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
28-02-2019 Steel Authority of India Ltd. Versus M/s. Seaspray Shipping Co. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
25-02-2019 Punjab National Bank Versus Indian Steel Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
25-02-2019 Oriental Bank of Commerce Versus H.S. Traders & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-02-2019 M/s. Unik Traders, Rep., by its P.A. Holder, Asif H Thara & Others Versus The Assistant/Deputy Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-02-2019 M/s. Unik Traders, Rep., by its P.A. Holder, Asif H Thara & Others Versus The Assistant/Deputy Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras