Page 156 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

594 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

its eligibility under the Scheme in the guise of a fresh/revised application after
the judgment of the Supreme Court and subsequent dismissal of its Review Peti-
tion.
37. As far as reliance of the petitioner on the Trade Notice dated 8-5-
2017 is concerned, the same also cannot help the petitioner inasmuch as it is
clearly applicable to exporters other than those against whom material had al-
ready been placed by respondents before the Supreme Court of their disentitle-
ment under the Scheme, including the petitioner herein.
38. As far as seeking parity with M/s. Adani Exports Ltd. is concerned,
there can be no equality achieved in the violation of law. There is no right stipu-
lated under Article 14 of the Constitution of India in the negative. Therefore,
merely because the respondents have granted some relief to M/s. Adani Exports
Ltd. or have not made any recoveries from it, cannot entitle the petitioner, by
itself, to claim benefit under the DFCE Scheme in spite of the clear and categori-
cal judgment of the Supreme Court holding it to be not entitled for the same.
39. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. The petitioner shall
pay a cost of Rs. 1 Lac to be deposited in ‘PM CARES’ Fund within a period of
four weeks of this judgment.

_______

2020 (373) E.L.T. 594 (Mad.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C. Saravanan, J.
SUPER SPINNING MILLS LTD.
Versus
JOINT SECRETARY REVISION APPLICATION, NEW DELHI
JT. SECY. REVISION APPLICATION, NEW DELHI
W.P. No. 21924 of 2013 and M.P. No. 1 of 2013, decided on 7-2-2020
1
Rebate - Exports - Manufacture and export of 100% Organic Cotton
Yarn - Denial of rebate for reason that goods exempted in terms of Notification
No. 30/2004-C.E. - HELD : Excise duty at concessional rate in terms of Notifica-
tion No. 29/2004-C.E. paid by petitioner - Impugned goods exported cannot be
said to be not liable to Excise duty so as to deny benefit of rebate claim under
Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Benefit of one of two notifications
cannot be forced on petitioner merely because revenue would stand to gain by
denying rebate of Central Excise duty paid - Fact of utilization of Cenvat credit
for discharging Excise duty on final product clearly shows that petitioner in-
capable of availing benefit of Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. - In view of denial
of legitimate export incentive on exported goods, impugned order requires to
be interfered - Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. [paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25]
Petition allowed
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from Order Nos. 195-196/2013, dated 28-2-2013 by Department of Revenue, Revi-
sionary Authority.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  156