Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Ranbaxy Lab.Ltd. vs Union Of India on 14 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 22054
-1- WP-7778-2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 14th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 7778 of 2006
M/S RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Agrim Arora - Advocate for the petitioner through V.C.
Shri Prasanna Prasad - Advocate for the respondents.
_________________________________________________________________
Reserved on : 23.07.2025
Pronounced on : 14.08.2025
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
assailing the order dated 29.12.2005 passed by the Joint Secretary Ministry of
Finance, Government of India in exercise of revisional powers under Section
35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of
1944’) whereby the revision application preferred by the department was allowed
and the order dated 30.11.2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central
Excise, Indore allowing the rebate claims of the petitioner was set aside.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 14-Aug-25
3:03:21 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 22054
-2- WP-7778-2006
The factual matrix of the case, in short, is as under:
2. The petitioner is a public limited company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956, having its manufacturing unit situated at Industrial Area
No. 3, Dewas, Madhya Pradesh and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of P
& P Medicaments falling under Chapters 29 and 30 of the First Schedule to the
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The petitioner manufactures pharmaceutical
formulations and sells them, both in the domestic market as well as through
export to other countries. Petitioner also exported samples of its finished
products to overseas markets for promotional purposes, and originally this export
of samples was done without payment of duty under the cover of prescribed
statutory Form ARE-1 (Application for Removal of Excisable Goods for Export),
and the goods were cleared directly from the factory.
3. The Superintendent of Central Excise, Dewas Range-II vide
communication dated 16.09.2002 advised the petitioner that there was no
provision for duty-free clearance of export samples under the Central Excise
Rules, 2002 and that the samples intended for export were required to be cleared
on payment of duty under cover of invoice prepared in accordance with Rule 11
of the Central Excise Rules. Pursuant to the aforesaid communication, petitioner
began clearing the said samples on payment of duty and transferring them to its
branch office at New Delhi, from where the samples were physically exported.
The samples were sealed by the customs authority at the airport before export
and all complete export documentation, including shipping bills and export
invoices, was prepared at the time of export from New Delhi. The petitioner
prepared and placed on record detailed statements correlating invoice numbers,
batch numbers, quantity cleared, and quantity exported to establish the
correlation between the duty-paid goods cleared from Dewas and the goods
exported from New Delhi. This said, the correlation was not disputed at any
stage of the proceedings before any authority.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 14-Aug-25
3:03:21 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 22054
-3- WP-7778-2006
4. The petitioner filed rebate claims dated 05.11.2003 and 24.11.2003
amounting to ₹28,97,561/- and ₹44,85,583/-, respectively with all relevant
documents including shipping bills, exchange control copies, export invoices,
duty payment documents and correlation charts under Rule 18 of the Central
Excise Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 2002’) for refund of
duty paid on such exported samples. In response, the Assistant Commissioner,
Central Excise, Ujjain issued query letters dated 28.01.2004 seeking clarification
with respect to certain procedural aspects, including the absence of ARE-1 forms
and whether the exports were made directly from the factory. The petitioner
submitted a detailed reply dated 09.02.2004 with complete documentation
evidencing export of duty-paid goods, explaining that the goods were cleared on
payment of duty and the same were exported through their New Delhi Branch
Office and therefore, no disclaimer certificate was required. Being dissatisfied
with the reply, the department issued two show-cause notices dated 26.03.2004
proposing rejection of the rebate claims due non-compliance with the procedure
prescribed under Chapter 8 of the Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC)
Manual and the absence of ARE-1 forms. Petitioner submitted a comprehensive
reply dated 27.05.2004 to the said show-cause notice, reiterating that the goods
had been exported after payment of duty and that the correlation between the
cleared goods and exported goods was fully established and further pointed out
that the procedural lapse, if any, was technical and non-substantive in nature.
5. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, adjudicated the show-cause
notices and passed two separate orders in original dated 31.08.2004, rejecting the
rebate claims on the ground that the petitioner had not filed ARE-1 forms and
had not followed the prescribed procedure and that since the goods were not
exported directly from the factory, the claims could not be entertained. Being
aggrieved by the orders dated 31.08.2004, petitioner preferred two appeals
before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Indore on 27.10.2004 which
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 14-Aug-25
3:03:21 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 22054
-4- WP-7778-2006
was decided by a common order dated 30.11.2004 whereby the appeals were
allowed observing that the substantial conditions for grant of rebate had been
fulfilled and that the goods had been exported after payment of duty relying on
various decisions of the CESTAT.
6. Aggrieved by the said appellate order, the department preferred a revision
application under Section 35EE of the Act of 1944 before the Joint Secretary,
Ministry of Finance, Government of India. The petitioner filed cross-objections,
appeared through counsel at the personal hearing and submitted that there was no
factual dispute regarding the export of the same goods and that denial of rebate
on hyper-technical grounds was impermissible in law. The revisional authority
vide order dated 29.12.2005 allowed the revision and restored the original
adjudication orders rejecting the rebate claims. The revisional authority held that
the procedures laid down under Rule 18 and the CBEC Manual were essential to
verify the export of the very same duty-paid goods and that the absence of ARE-
1 forms, failure to export directly from the factory, rendered it impossible to
establish such correlation. Although the revisional authority acknowledged the
principle that procedural infractions should not defeat substantive rights
however, it was held that the procedures in question were not merely directory
but mandatory in nature and essential to safeguard revenue interests. Hence, this
petition is before this Court.
Submissions of the Counsel for the petitioner
7. Shri Arora, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, submitted
that the revisional authority had committed a grave error in setting aside the
well-reasoned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and by disregarding
the admitted factual finding that the duty-paid goods cleared from the factory of
petitioner were, in fact, exported out of the country. The Joint Secretary
exceeded jurisdiction in entertaining and allowing the revision application filed
at the behest of the Commissioner of Central Excise without satisfying the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 14-Aug-25
3:03:21 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 22054
-5- WP-7778-2006
preconditions prescribed under Section 35EE(1A) of the Act of 1944. Learned
Counsel submitted that the revision under the said provision could only be
entertained after an opinion that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)
was not legal or proper, and such an opinion had to be based on material
evidence, since in the present case, no such opinion was formed thus, the
revision itself was not maintainable. Learned Counsel submitted that the
appellate order does not suffers from any perversity or error and was passed by
the Commissioner (Appeals) after examining the documentary evidence such as
shipping and airway bills, clearance invoices and batch numbers establishing the
factual correlation between the duty-paid clearances from the Dewas unit and the
eventual export of the said goods from New Delhi. The appellate authority had
rightly held that the benefit could not be denied on the basis of mere technical or
procedural lapses. The Joint Secretary committed an error in reversing the
appellate order merely on suspicion and conjecture because at no point was the
export of goods disputed by any authority having full knowledge of the
procedures followed.
8. Learned Counsel further submitted that the absence of procedural forms
such as ARE-1 could not defeat the substantive claim for rebate, particularly
when the goods were admittedly exported and the correlation between the
exported goods and the duty-paid goods was fully established. The omission of
Form ARE-1 is due to the instructions issued by the Department itself, which had
previously directed the petitioner to follow a different procedure for sample
exports. It is a settled legal principle that procedural lapses cannot defeat
substantive rights under beneficial fiscal legislation.
9. In support of his contention, learned counsel has referred to the relevant
provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Central Excise Rules, 2002 as
well as the CBEC Excise Manual and Circular No. 294/10/94-CX dated
30.01.1997 and further placed reliance on judgments of High Courts in U.M.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 14-Aug-25
3:03:21 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 22054
-6- WP-7778-2006
Cables v. Union of India reported in 2013 (293) E.L.T. 641 (Bom); Raj Petro
Specialities v. Union of India reported in 2017 (345) E.L.T. 496 (Guj); Aarti
Industries Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2014 (305) E.L.T. 196 (Bom) and
Kaizen Pastomould Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2015 (330) E.L.T. 40
(Bom).
Submissions of the counsel for the respondent
10. Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that
the impugned revisional order is a well-reasoned and legally sustainable order
passed upon due appreciation of the statutory framework and the factual matrix
of the case. The petitioner had filed a rebate claim in respect of certain
pharmaceutical goods stated to have been exported as free samples however, the
same was rejected for want of mandatory compliance with the procedure
prescribed under Rule 18 of the Rules of 2002, read with Notification No.
42/2001-CE(NT) dated 26.06.2001. The entire rebate mechanism under the
statutory rules is predicated upon the filing and verification of the ARE-1 form.
The petitioner had admittedly failed to furnish the ARE-1 forms along with its
rebate claim. Learned Counsel further submitted that the attempt to establish
correlation through secondary evidence or invoice matching is neither legally
permissible nor factually sufficient to meet the mandatory procedural
requirements as provided in law. The Revisional Authority had rightly found that
in the absence of ARE-1 forms it was not possible to verify whether the goods
cleared from the petitioners Dewas factory were the same as those exported from
its New Delhi warehouse and that the statutory procedure requires verification of
goods at the place of removal and endorsement by the jurisdictional Central
Excise Officer which could not have been accomplished without the ARE-1
form.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner, being a
major exporter of pharmaceutical products, could not have been unaware of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 14-Aug-25
3:03:21 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 22054
-7- WP-7778-2006
procedural obligations under the Act of 1944. The correspondence from the
Central Excise authorities as early as in 2002 had communicated that export of
samples without payment of duty was not permissible and that such exports must
be made on payment of duty followed by rebate claims in the prescribed manner
hence the contention of the petitioner that the ARE-1 forms were not prepared
due to the nature of the consignments being “free samples” is totally
unacceptable and unsustainable. It is further submitted that the revisional order
is not vitiated by any error of law or jurisdiction, as the Joint Secretary had
exercised his revisional powers in accordance with law, having found that the
order passed by the Commissioner was erroneous and unsustainable. Hence, the
petition is liable to be dismissed.
12. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the respondent has placed
reliance on judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and High Courts in case of
Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Company
reported in (2018) 361 ELT 577 (SC); Indian Aluminum Co. Ltd. v. Thane
Municipal Corporation reported in 1991 (55) ELT 454 (SC); Kedarnath Jute
Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Tax Officer reported in AIR 1966
SC 12.; Saraswati Sugar Mills v. CCE, New Delhi -II reported in (2011) 270
ELT 465 (SC) and MPD Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2020
(372) ELT 638 (MP).
Appreciation and Conclusion
13. The admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner is engaged in the
business of manufacture and sale of P & P Medicaments falling under Chapters
29 and 30 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The
petitioner cleared the sample of P & P Medicaments for its own concern in the
name Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Industrial Area, New Delhi, on payment of
duty. Initially, the petitioner transferred the aforesaid goods from the factory at
Dewas on a stock transfer basis to the factory at New Delhi. According to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 14-Aug-25
3:03:21 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 22054
-8- WP-7778-2006
petitioner, subsequently, the same goods were cleared to be exported to various
foreign agencies from the unit at New Delhi. The petitioner submitted an
application to the competent authority claiming a rebate of the duty vide
applications dated 05.11.2003 and 24.11.2003. In support of the claim, the
petitioner submitted the documents relating to the proof of export viz., shipping
bills, bills of exchange, export invoices, etc. The Assistant Commissioner, as
well as the Revisional Authority, have rejected the claim solely on the ground
that the samples of P & P Medicaments were not exported directly from the
Dewas unit, as no ARE-1 was prepared or submitted by the petitioner. It is also
not in dispute that ARE-1 is the basic document on which the exporter has to
export the goods under the claim of a rebate. If the exporter exports goods from
a place other than the factory, then permission for such export is required under
sub-para 1.1(ii) of para 1 of Part-I of Chapter 8 of the CBEC’s Manual.
14. The rules 18, 19 and 20 of the Rules of 2002 deal with the rebate of duty
in the case of export of goods. Rules 18, 19 and 20 are reproduced below for
ready reference :
RULE 18. Rebate of duty. — Where any goods are exported, the
Central Government may, by notification, grant rebate of duty paid on
such excisable goods or duty paid on materials used in the
manufacture or processing of such goods and the rebate shall be
subject to such conditions or limitations, if any, and fulfilment of such
procedure, as may be specified in the notification.
Explanation. – For the purposes of this rule, ―export, with its
grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means taking goods
out of India to a place outside India and includes shipment of goods as
provision or stores for use on board a ship proceeding to a foreign port
or supplied to a foreign going aircraft.
RULE 19. Export without payment of duty. — (1) Any excisable
goods may be exported without payment of duty from a factory of the
producer or the manufacturer or the warehouse or any other premises,
as may be approved by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,
as the case may be.
(2)Any material may be removed without payment of duty from a
factory of the producer or the manufacturer or the warehouse or any
other premises, for use in the manufacture or processing of goods
which are exported, as may be approved by the Principal
Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 14-Aug-25
3:03:21 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 22054
-9- WP-7778-2006
(3) The export under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) shall be subject to
such conditions, safeguards and procedure as may be specified by
notification by the Board.
RULE 20. Ware housing provisions. — (1) The Central
Government may by notification, extend the facility of removal of any
excisable goods from the factory of production to a warehouse, or
from one warehouse to another warehouse without payment of duty.
(2) The facility under sub-rule (1) shall be available subject to such
conditions, including penalty and interest, limitations, including
limitation with respect to the period for which the goods may remain
in the warehouse, and safeguards and procedure, including in the
matters relating to dispatch, movement, receipt, accountal and disposal
of such goods, as may be specified by the Board.
(3) The responsibility for payment of duty on the goods that are
removed from the factory of production to a warehouse or from one
warehouse to another warehouse shall be upon the consignee.
(4) If the goods dispatched for warehousing or re-warehousing are not
received in the warehouse, the responsibility for payment of duty shall
be upon the consignor.
15. As per Rule 18 of the Rules of 2002, the Central Government may, by
notification, grant a rebate to duty paid on such excisable goods or materials used
in the manufacture or processing of such goods, but that rebate shall be subject to
conditions or limitations. Rule 19 stipulates that any excisable goods may be
exported without payment of duty from a factory, the warehouse or any other
premises as may be approved by the Commissioner, but the same shall be subject
to such conditions, safeguards and procedure as may be specified by notification.
As per Rule 20, the Central Government may, by notification, extend the facility
of removal of any excisable goods from the factory to a warehouse or from one
warehouse to another warehouse without payment of duty that too subject to
conditions which may include penalty and interest. It shall be the responsibility
of the manufacturer to pay of duty on the goods that are removed from the
factory of production to a warehouse.
16. Chapter 8 of the CBEC’s Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions
deals with the export under claim for rebate. Clause 7 of the Manual is
reproduced hereunder :
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 14-Aug-25
3:03:21 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 22054
-10- WP-7778-2006
7. Examination of goods at the place of export
7.1 The place of export may be a port, airport, Inland container
Depot, Customs Freight Station, of Land Customs Station.
7.2 The exporter shall present together with original, duplicate and
quintuplicate (optional) copies of the application (A.R.E.1) to the
Commissioner of Customs or other duly appointed officer – normally
goods are presented in the designated export shed.
7.3 The goods are examined by the Customs for the purpose of
Central Excise to establish the identity and quantity, i.e. the goods
brought in the Customs are for export on an A.R.E.1 are the same
which were cleared from the factory. The Customs authorities also
examine the goods for Customs purposes such as verifying for certain
export incentives such as drawback, DEEC, DEPB or for determining
exportability of the goods.
7.4 For Central Excise purposes, the Officers of Customs at the
place of export shall examine the consignments with the particulars as
cited in the application (A.R.E.1) and if he finds that the same are
correct and the goods are exportable in accordance with the laws for
the time being in force (for example, they are not prohibited or
restricted from being exported), shall allow export thereof. Thereafter,
he will certify on the copies of the A.R.E.1 that the goods have been
duly exported citing the shipping bill number and date and other
particulars of export.
7.5 The officers of customs shall return the original and
quintuplicate (optional copy for exporter) copies of application to the
exproter and forward the duplicate copy of application either by post
or by handing over to the exporter in a tamper proof sealed cover to
the officer specified in the application, from whome exporter wants to
claim rebate. However, where exporter claims rebate by electronic
declaration on Electronic Data Inter-change system of Customs, the
duplicate shall be sent to the Excise Rebate Audit Section at the place
of export.
7.6 The exporter shall use the quituplicate copy for the purposes of
claiming any other export incentive.
17. As per sub-clause 7.2, the exporter shall present together with original,
duplicate and quintuplicate (optional) copies of the application ARE-1 to the
Commissioner of Customs at the time of presentation of the goods in the
designated export shed. The goods shall be examined by the customs for the
purpose of Central Excise to establish the identity and quantity of the goods for
export on an ARE-1 are the same which were cleared from the factory.
Therefore, the goods which are being brought to the place of export should be
accompanied by ARE-1 in order to satisfy that the identity and quantity of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 14-Aug-25
3:03:21 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 22054
-11- WP-7778-2006
goods are the same which are mentioned in the ARE-1. The ARE-1 is always
prepared by the Central Excise Officer deputed at the place of manufacture who
satisfies that the goods packed for export and mentioned in the ARE-1 are the
same.
18. In order to claim the rebate as per Clause 8.2 of the CBEC Manual, it shall
be essential for the exporter to indicate on the ARE-1 at the time of removal of
the export goods, the office and its complete address with which they intend to
file the claim of rebate. The documents which shall be required for filing a
rebate are mainly an original copy of ARE-1. Therefore, the revisional authority
has rightly held that without the ARE-1, the claim of rebate cannot be allowed.
19. As per the CBEC’s Excise Manual, the exporter has 02 optional procedures
regarding the manner in which they may clear the export consignments from the
factory or the warehouse, namely :
(i) Examination and sealing of goods at the place of despatch by a
Central Excise Officer.
(ii) Under self-sealing and self-certification.
20. Admittedly, the petitioner did not follow the aforesaid procedure, and in
the absence of the aforesaid procedure, it is not possible to ascertain whether the
goods exported by the petitioner are the same which were cleared by them from
their unit at Dewas. Therefore, in the absence of ARE-1, it will not be possible
for the authorities to allow the claim of a rebate.
21. Shri Arora, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the
judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in case of
U.M.Cables (supra) wherein it has been held that non-production of original and
duplicate copy of ARE-1 ipso facto, it cannot invalidate rebate claim, because the
exporter can demonstrate by cogent evidence that the goods were exported and
duty paid. However, in the case of U.M.Cables (supra), the ARE-1 forms were
prepared, but the original and the duplicate were lost, for which an FIR was also
lodged. Therefore, the Court has held that from other documents, the burden can
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 14-Aug-25
3:03:21 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 22054
-12- WP-7778-2006
be discharged. But in the present case, the ARE-1 was not prepared at all, which
is mandatory under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Rules of 2002. Shri
Arora, learned Counsel, has also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the
Division Bench of High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in the case of Raj Petro
Specialities (supra) wherein the original ARE-1 were lost/stolen for which an
FIR came to be lodged at the Police Station. Therefore, the two cases relied
upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner i.e. U.M.Cables and Raj Petro
Specialities (supra), will not be of any help to the petitioner.
22. On the other hand, Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the
respondent has produced the copy of Notification No. 42/2001-CE(NT) dated
26.06.2001 issued in exercise of powers conferred by sub-rule (3) of rule 19 of
the Central Excise Rules, 2001 notifying the conditions and procedure for export
of all the excisable goods without payment of duty from the factory or the
warehouse which includes the form ARE-1. The Form ARE-1 is reproduced
hereunder for ready reference :
FORM A.R.E. 1
Application for removal of excisable goods for export by (Air/Sea/Post/Land)*
To
Superintendent of Central Excise
……………………(Full Postal Address)
1. Particulars of [Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise]/Maritime Commissioner of
Central Excise from whom rebate shall be claimed/with whom bond/undertaking is executed and
his complete postal address.
2. I/We …….. of …………..propose to export the under-mentioned consignment to ……….. (Country of
destination) by Air/Sea/Land/Parcel Post under claim for rebate/bond/undertaking*.
Particulars of Manufacturer No. and Gross Marks and
Quantity Description
of goods-and his Central Description weight/Net Nos. on
of goods of Goods
Excise Registration No. of packages weight packages
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Value Duty No. and date of Invoice under which
Amount of
duty was paid/No. and date of
Rebate Remarks
Rate Amt. bond/undertaking executed under
claimed
(Rs.) Rule 19
(7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 14-Aug-25
3:03:21 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 22054
-13- WP-7778-2006
3. I/We hereby certify that the above- mentioned goods have been manufactured.
(a) availing facility/without availing facility of CENVAT credit under CENVAT Credit Rules,
2001
(b) availing facility/without availing facility under Notification 41/2001-CE(N.T.), dated 26th
June, 2001 issued under rule 18 of Central Excise(No.2) Rules, 2001.
(c) availing facility/without availing facility under Notification 43/2001-CE(N.T.), dated 26th
June, 2001 issued under rule 19 of Central Excise(No.2) Rules, 2001.
4. I/We hereby declare that the export is in discharge of the export obligation under a Quantity
based Advance Licence/ /Under Claim of Duty Drawback under Customs & Central Excise
Duties Drawback Rules, 1995.
5. I/We hereby declare that the above particulars are true and correctly stated.
Time of Removal…………………………….
Signature of owner or his
Authorised agent with date.
Name in Block Letters & Designation (SEAL)
PART A
CERTIFICATION BY CENTRAL EXCISE OFFICE
1. Certified that duty has been paid by debit entry in the Personal Ledger Account No. ………and/or
CENVAT Account Entry No……..or recorded as payable in Daily Stock Account, on the goods described
overleaf. OR Certified that the owner has entered into Bond No. ………… under Rule 19 of Central Excise
(No.2) Rules, 2001 with the……………………………….[F.No.___________________], duly accepted by the
Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise________ on _________(Date).
2. Certified that I have opened and examined the packages No…..
…………………………………………………… and found that the particulars stated and the description of
goods given overleaf and the packing list (if any) are correct and that all the packages have been stuffed in
the container No. …………… with Marks ……………… and the same has been sealed with Central Excise
Seal/One Time Seal (OTS) No. ………….
3. I have verified with the records, the exporter is only availing the export incentives, as specified in box
No.6. and found it to be true.
4. Certified that I have drawn three representative samples from the consignment (wherever necessary)
and have handed over, two sets thereof duly sealed to the exporter/his authorised representative.
Place…………………
Date ……………………
Signature Signature
(Name in Block Letters) (Name in Block Letters)
Superintendent of Central Excise Inspector of Central Excise
PART B
CERTIFICATION BY THE CUSTOMS OFFICER
Certified that the consignment was shipped under my supervision under Shipping Bill No_______ dated
_______by S.S./Flight No. ______which left on the_______ day of________ (Month)__________(year)
OR Certified that the above-mentioned consignment was stuffed in Container
No._____________________ belonging to Shipping Line_________________ based on the “Let Export
Order” given on ____________day of.________(Month)__________year) on the Shipping Bill No______
dated________ and sealed by seal/one time lock No._______________ in my supervision and the
container was handed over to the Custodian M/s______________ for being shipped via
___________________(Name of the Port). OR Certified that the above-mentioned consignment has been
duly identified and has passed the land frontier today at_______in its original condition under Bill of
Exports No______________ Place_____________Date_____________.
Signature
(Name and designation of the Customs
Officer in Block Letters)/(Seal)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 14-Aug-25
3:03:21 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 22054
-14- WP-7778-2006
23. In the above form ARE-I, there are columns for mentioning the particulars
for the Manufacturer of goods and the Central Excise Registration number,
description of packages, gross weight and description of the goods. Part A of the
form is to be certified by the Central Excise Officer, and Part B is a certification
by the Customs Officer who certifies that the above-mentioned consignment was
stuffed in the container number after verification of the contents from the
container and details mentioned in the ARE-I.
24. Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel, has relied upon the judgment
passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of MPD Industries Pvt.
Ltd. vs. Union of India, wherein the writ petition has been dismissed as the
petitioner therein failed to comply with the various statutory provisions by not
producing the bills of export. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the
judgment passed by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of
Commissioner of Customs (Import) Mumbai (supra) wherein the Apex Court
has held that the statute must be construed according to the intention of the
legislature. The words in the statute, when clear, plain and unambiguous, only
one meaning can be inferred; Courts are bound to give effect to the said meaning.
25. It is further submitted that the scope of judicial review is very limited
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex
Court in case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil,
(2010) 8 SCC 329. The relevant paragraph No. 49 of the order is reproduced
hereunder :
“On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following
principles on the exercise of High Court’s jurisdiction under Article
227 of the Constitution may be formulated:
(a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from a
petition under Article 227. The mode of exercise of power by the High
Court under these two Articles is also different.
(b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called a writ
petition. The history of the conferment of writ
The jurisdiction of High Courts is substantially different from the
history of conferment of the power of Superintendence on the HighSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 14-Aug-25
3:03:21 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 22054
-15- WP-7778-2006
Courts under Article 227 and have been discussed above.
(c) High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power
of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere
with the orders of tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in
exercise of this power, act as a Court of appeal over the orders of
Court or tribunal subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative
statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also
operate as a restraint on the exercise of this power by the High Court.
(d) The parameters of interference by High Courts in exercise of its
power of superintendence have been repeatedly laid down by this
Court. In this regard the High Court must be guided by the
principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of this
Court in Waryam Singh (supra) and the principles in Waryam
Singh (supra) have been repeatedly followed by subsequent
Constitution Benches and various other decisions of this Court.
(e) According to the ratio in Waryam Singh (supra), followed in
subsequent cases, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of
superintendence can interfere in order only to keep the tribunals and
Courts subordinate to it, `within the bounds of their authority’.
(f) In order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and
Courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not
declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them.
(g) Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (f), High Court can
interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has
been a patent perversity in the orders of tribunals and Courts
subordinate to it or where there has been a
gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural
justice have been flouted.
(h) In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot
interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another
view than the one taken by the tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is
a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very
sparingly exercised.
(i) High Court’s power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot
be curtailed by any statute. It has been declared a part of the basic
structure of the Constitution by the Constitution Bench of this Court in
the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & others, reported
in (1997) 3 SCC 261 and therefore abridgement by a Constitutional
amendment is also very doubtful.
(j) It may be true that a statutory amendment of a rather cognate
provision, like Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Civil
Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 does not and cannot cut
down the ambit of High Court’s power under Article 227. At the same
time, it must be remembered that such statutory amendment does not
correspondingly expand the High Court’s jurisdiction of
superintendence under Article 227.
(k) The power is discretionary and has to be exercised on equitable
principle. In an appropriate case, the power can be exercised suo
motu.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 14-Aug-25
3:03:21 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 22054
-16- WP-7778-2006
(l) On a proper appreciation of the wide and unfettered power of the
High Court under Article 227, it transpires that the main object of this
Article is to keep strict administrative and judicial control by the High
Court on the administration of justice within its territory.
(m) The object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is
to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire
machinery of justice in such
a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of
interference under this Article is to be kept to the minimum to ensure
that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of
justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public
confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and Courts subordinate
to High Court.
(n) This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not
to be exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases but should be
directed for promotion of public confidence in the administration of
justice in the larger public interest whereas Article 226 is meant for
protection of individual grievance. Therefore, the power under Article
227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of
judicial discipline pointed out above.
(o) An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counter-
productive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and
vitality.”
26. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, we are of the considered
opinion that no interference is warranted in the impugned order dated 29.12.2025
passed by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance/respondent No.2. Accordingly,
the petition stands dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
vidya
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 14-Aug-25
3:03:21 PM