- (1.) This order shall dispose of CWP No.24967 and 26321 of 2015 as according to the learned counsel for the parties, the issues involved in both the petitions are identical. However, the facts are being taken from
(2.) In CWP No.24967 of 2015, the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 28.8.2015, Annexure P.8 passed by the revisional authority rejecting the revision application filed by it and upholding the order in appeal dated 21.8.2012.
(3.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in CWP No.24967 of 2015 may be noticed. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and export of hand tools falling under Chapter Heading 82 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the assessment year 2009-10, the petitioner availed benefit of Small Scale Industries Exemption notification dated 1.3.2003. As per Rules 18 and 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (in short, "the Rules"), export of goods is exempt from duty. Even inputs can be procured without payment of duty. Apart from clearing the goods in the domestic market, the petitioner exported few consignments during the assessment year 2009-10. The petitioner exported all the consignments through merchant exporter who applied Form H. Form H had been prescribed under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 as proof of export of goods. The respondents issued show cause notice dated 25.2.2010 whereby the petitioner was called upon to pay duty amounting to Rs. 3,06,417/- alleging that though it had furnished bond but had not followed the export procedure in as much as it had failed to furnish ARE 1 and proof of export of goods as required under Rule 19 of the Rules. Vide letter dated 24.2.2011, the petitioner requested the adjudicating authority to grant some time to file reply to the show cause notice. The adjudicating authority passed order dated 16.3.2011, Annexure P.4 confirming the demand. It was held that though the petitioner had executed bond, it had failed to comply with the condition laid down under the relevant notification. The adjudicating authority also imposed penalty of Rs. 30,000/- under Rule 25 of the Rules. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh. The petitioner inter alia pleaded that it was new in the field and was not aware that copies of Form H duly attested were required to be submitted to the department. There was no dispute with regard to the factum of export of goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 21.8.2012, Annexure P.5 dismissed the appeal and upheld the penalty apart from demand of duty. The petitioner moved revision application before the Government of India, Ministry of Finance. According to the petitioner, as per Section 35EE of the Act, a revision application against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) lies before the Central Government. However, in the provision, it is not specified that who will exercise the powers of the Central Government. The Central Government had delegated its power to Joint Secretary to Government of India. The order dated 28.8.2015, Annexure P.8 had been passed by the Joint Secretary who was Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs. Vide order dated 28.8.2015, Annexure P.8, the revisional authority dismissed the revision application of the petitioner holding that the petitioner was bound to comply with procedure of ARE-1 which it had failed. Further, the petitioner was registered with the department, so it was not entitled to benefit of simplified export procedure and Form H was not a valid document as proof of export. Hence the instant petitions by the petitioner.;