WP/13504/2009 of M/s. Balaji Industrial and Agricultural Castings, Vs The Government of India, Ministry of Finance AND Company on 19 January 2026

1. The Government of lndia, Ministry of. Finance AND Company,,,tfiil'j,l Oepa rtment of n"r"r, re, i +' H rdco Vishala B u i ld i ng !:ry,L9,'-61|,I Cama place,-itew-OeNilt 10066, rep. by itsJoint Secretary (Review)

2. The Assistant Commissioneitf Ceniral Excise, Hydeiatiad - M Division' Hyderabad: iV Cormissionerale, Faoi Notlg ?nd Zi, Aditya Towers, Sri Sai Eia"G Ob Bowenpally, Secunderabad - 500 011' ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly a writ of Mandamus declaring the order No. 137l09-CX dt.03.06.2009 passed bythe 1st respondent as arbitrary, iltegal, without jurisdiction and ultra vires the provisions of central Excise Act and Rules and violation of Article 14 0f the constitution of lndia and to set aside the same l.A. NO: I OF 2009(WPMP. NO: 17546 OF 2009) Petition under s,ection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order No. 137/09-CX dt. 03.06.2009 passed by the 1"t respondent lA NO: I OF 2019 Between: AND

1. The A:;sistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad - M Division, Hyderabad - lV Commissionerate, Plot Nos.16 and 21, Aditya Towers, Sri Sai Eiclave, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad - 500 011. (Presently Office of the Commissioner of Central Tax, Medcha! GST ' CommiCsionerate, H.No. 11464918 M Lakdikapul, Hyderabad 4) ....PETITIONER 2Nd RESPONDENT M/s. Balaji lndustrial and Agricultural Castings, 16 lDA, Balanagar, Hyderabad

- 500 037, rep. by its Partner, M. Bhuvaneshwari, Wo. M. Sreekanth. ...RESPONDENT/UI'RIT PETITIONER The Ciovernment of lndia, Ministry of Finance AND Company, {fairs, Deparlment of Revenue, 14 Hudco Vishala Building B-Wing,_6th Floor, Bhikaji Caha Place, New Delhi-110066, rep. by its Joint Secretary (Review) ...RESPONDENT/I St RCSPONDENT Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the stay granted vide order dt. 16/9/2009 in WPMP NO. 17546/2009 lN WP No. 13504/2009 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MOHD. ANWAR AL! REP M/s. MOHAN VINOD & ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondents Ms. PRAVALIKA GOUD FOR SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES (senior standing counsel for CBIC) The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TETANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABTE SRI IUSTI ESUDDAL/A CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION o-135O4 of 2OO9 DATE OF ORDER: 19.01.2026 Between : M/s. Balaji Industrial and Agricultural Castings, 16 IDA, Balanaga6 Hyderabad - 500 037, Rep. by its partner M, Bhuvaneshwari, Wo. M.Sreekanth. ...Petitioner AND The Government of India, Ministry of Finance & Company Affairs, Department of Revenue, 14, Hudco Vishala Building, B-Wing,6th Floor, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066, Rep. by its Joint Secretary (Review) and 1 other. ... Respondents ORDER: (per the Honk gi lustic€ P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. Mohd. Anwar Ali, learned counsel representing M/s. Mohan Vinod Associates for the petitioner; and Ms. Pravalika Goud, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr' Dominic Page ?- of 7 Fernander;, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC for respondent No.2.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the Order No.137l0'9-CX, dated 03.06.2009, passed by respondent No.1.

3. Vldr: the said impugned order, respondent No.1 / Revisional Authority has affirmed the Order-in-Appeal No.1212007(H-IV)(D), dated 29.08.2007, passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central E:<cise (Appeals).

4. The point for consideration is 'whether the petitioner would be entitl:d for rebate of duty for the exports made to other countries other than Nepal and Bhutan in terms of the notification No. 19/2004-CE (NT), dated 05.09.2006?'

5. The: respondent Nc.2 / Assessing Officer, at the first instance, vide order dated 18.09.2006 had accepted the contention of the petitioner so far as treating the export made by the petitioner to be one which would be accessible to rebate as per the notification No.19/2C,04-CE (NT), dated 06.09.2006. The order passed by the

Assessing Officer was subjected to challenge before the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) by way of Order-in-Appeal No.1212007(H-IVXD). The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) found that the petitioner, in fact, had exported certain equipments from India to Zambia and had received certain job work for digging of bore wells' The equipments exported werg also in connection with the accomplishments of job work given to the petitioner'

6. The petitioner claimed for refund vlde application dated 10.04.2006 and the same was processed by the Assessing Officer by issuing a notice on 05.07.2006. The petitioner replied to the said notice on 19.O7.2006. Thereafte[ considering the submissions put forth on either side, the Assessing Officer vrde order dated 18.09.2006 allowed the claim of the petitioner, which was set aside by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals)'

7. The grounds for setting aside the order dated 18'09'2006' was that the notification No.19/2004-CE (NT) itself very specifically mentionedthattherebatewouldbeeligibleonlyforthose exporters who meet the conditions, limitatioris, and procedures ...J,, -.,/

specified in the said notification. The notification had categorically spelt out certain conditions and limitations and also laid down the procedun:s under which such rebate would be claimed. The commissioner of customs & central Excise (Appeals) found that the petitioner was not in a position to meet the conditions and limitations at the first instance and also has not complied with the procedures spelt out in notification No.19/2004-cE (NT). Thus, allowing the appeal of the Revenue, the commissioner of customs & central Excise (Appeals) set aside the order-in-original No.32l2006-07-R. 8- It vuas this order which has been subjected to chailenge by the petiti()ner before the Revisional Authority by way of a revision. The Revisional Authority also finding force in the conclusion arrived at by the commissioner of customs & central Excise (Appeals) found that the petitioner, in fact, has not followed the provisions of notificaticn No.tg/2oo4-cE (NT). Further, the Revisional Authority found that there were certain discrepancies in the claim raised by the petiti(\nar a( -\ *\s

Page 5 ot 7

9. Some of the essential features which are reflected from the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) as also by the Revisional Authority are that with the so- called export being made by the petitioner, there was no foreign exchange that was earned by the petitioner from the sale of those equipments or by the Government of India indirectly. Secondly, the duty for the vehicle on which the bore well equipments were fixed were in fact not manufactured by the petitioner, but were manufactured by M/s. Ashok Leyland, who had paid the duty. Therefore, the rebate for the said vehicle could not had been claimed by the petitioner who was only the manufacturer of bore well equipments which was installed on the vehicle purchased from M/s. Ashok Leyland. Likewise, it was also the finding of the two authorities that the exporter had also not filed any ARE-1 and the procedure prescribed so far as selling of the goods of which export was made, the examination of those goods and places of dispatch was also not carried out in terms of the requirements spelt out in notification No.19/20O4-CE (NT). Another irnportant aspect which was found by the two authorities was that the entire export was made by the petitioner for carrying out job work that they had got fl in Zambia and after the job work; the entire equipments were re- imported back to Zambia. Therefore, since the goods that were exported 'were at the time of export itself shown as goods to be re- importabl,-. by itself would establish that since it was of re- importabl,: basis, the country as such was not earning any foreign exchange from the so-called export made by the petitioner entailing lrim for rebate as notified yrde notification No.19/2004-CE (NT).

10. Sinr:e the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) as also the Revisional Authority have given a concurrent finding so far as the petitioner having not fulfilled the conditions and limitations and also having not complied with the procedures laid down in the notification No.19/2004-CE (NT), the petitioner was required to establish by way of specific proof of having met the conditionr; and also having fulfilled the procedures laid down in the notificatic,n No.19/2004-CE (NT). However, perusal of the writ petition and upon hearing the contentions put forth by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, we were not taken through the proof if any available with the petitioner so far as having met the condition:; and limitations and also having complied with the procedures spelt out in notification No.19/2004-CE (NT)' In the absence of any specific material strong enough to hold that the findings arrived at by the two forums i.e. Revisional Authority as also by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) to be an incorrect finding of fact, we do not find any strong case made outbythepetitionertoholdthatthetwoorderstobeeitherbadin law or factuallY incorrect.

11. The instant writ petition therefore being devoid of merit' deserves to be and is accordingly, dismissed' The question of law stands decided in favour of the Revenue and against the petitioner holding that the petitioner is not entitled for any rebate of duty for the exports made to other countries other than Nepal and Bhutan in terms of the notification No.19/2004-CE (NT), dated 05'09'2006' L2. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any' shall stand ctosed. However, there shail be no order "r TrllihorANt swAmy ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,,TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER

1 . One CC to M/s. MOHAN VINOD & AS-S^OCIATES' Advocate TOPUCI

2. One CC to SRt. DOMIN|L FEflilnru*oEslie"ioisiandins couhselfor CBIC) loPUcl

3. Two CD Copies BM BS @t- To,

gonrwn mDm WP.No.13504 of 2009 DISMISSING THE WRIT tqi.lilt li 2 I Fi8 2026 ,J i * * r( f..'t- o o