- (1.) The impugnment common in these petitions, is in essence, mounted against the decision of the revisional authority under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') negating the petitioner's assailment of the decision of the concerned central excise authorities to withdraw the acceptance of the proof of export of its six consignments as well as the consequential show cause notice(s) issued for realization of the corresponding amounts of excise duty with interest thereon as well as penalty for the alleged contravention of the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules'). The extra dimension in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.12226/2011 pertains to the bar of limitation prescribed by Section 35EE of the Act, for which the petitioner's revision application thereunder, has already been rejected, as belated. The issues, in substance, being identical, the petitions were heard analogously and the present adjudication would answer the same.
(2.) We have heard Mr.M.P.Devinath with Mr.Sameer Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Anil Mehta & Mr.Ajay Shukla for the respondents.
(3.) In the outlined backdrop of the instant scrutiny, the facts in bare essential, would only be scripted as the determination of the debate involved, would logically eventuate in the resultant legal consequences, even in absence of specific references to all the impugned orders involved.;