GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS,J. - (1.) In both the writ petition following prayer is made by the petitioners, which reads as under:- "i) That the present writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 1010.2017 (Annex.13) passed by the Respondent No.4, impugned Order-in-Original dated 31.3.2005 (Annex.9) and impugned order - in - Appeal dated. 12.8.2015 (Annex.10) may kindly be quashed and set aside ii) By giving effect to judgment dated 2.1.2005, 1.7.2011 of this Hon'ble Court and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Respondents should process and decide the rebate claims of the petitioner within stipulated time frame. iii) By an appropriate writ order or direction the rebate claim filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed as prayed for. iv) Any other relief deed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioners. v) costs be quantified in favour of the petitioners."
(2.) As per the facts of the case both the petitioners preferred revision application under section 35 EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order in appeal No.464-465(HKS)CE/JPR-II/2005 dated 12.8.2013 whereby the revisional authority (respondent no.4) dismissed the revision petition only on the ground of delay of 8 years in filing revision petition.
(3.) As per the facts of the case, the petitioner procured the raw material at Nil rate of duty under Notification No.43/2001-CE(NT) dated 26.6.2001 subject to the condition that the final products manufactured from such raw material would be exported. The Central Board of Excise and Customs, vide its notification No.10/2004 - CE (NT) dated 2.6.2004, amended the above said notification by inserting an explanation to provide that the export of goods can be effected under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules only. The Central Board of Excise and customs, vide its circular no.792/25/2004-CX dated 2.6.2004 also clarified that the explanation inserted in Rule 19 will be effective from 26.6.2001.;