VBC 1 wp3965.10-28.6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.3965 OF 2010 Union of India through Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I. ..Petitioner. versus M/s.Rishabh Silk Mills & Anr. ..Respondents. ..... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10375 OF 2010 Union of India through Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I. ..Petitioner. versus M/s.Vishal Poddar & Anr. ..Respondents. ..... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10377 OF 2010 Union of India through Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I. ..Petitioner. versus M/s.Vikram International & Anr. ..Respondents. ..... Mr.M.I.Sethna, Senior Advocate with Mr.Pradeep S.Jetly and Mr.Jitendra B.Mishra for the Petitioner. Mr.Prakash Shah with Mr.Jas Sanghavi i/b. M/s.PDS Legal for he Respondent No.1. ...... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & ANOOP V. MOHTA , JJ. June 28, 2011. VBC 2 wp3965.10-28.6 P.C. : These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution have been filed by the Union of India in order to challenge the order passed by the revisional authority under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Both, the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Commissioner (Appeals), had rejected the applications for the grant of rebate by the First Respondents, who are merchant exporters. The applications for the grant of rebate were rejected on the basis that the basic condition for sanctioning a rebate under Rule 18 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, is that the goods which have been exported, should be goods in respect of which duty has been paid. There was a finding of fact that the manufacturers of the goods had procured inputs from several Units in respect of which alert circulars were issued by the Central Excise Department at Surat and the Units from which the goods have been purchased were found to be bogus and fake. On this basis, there was a finding that Cenvat Credit had been wrongfully availed of and hence, there was no occasion to grant a rebate of Central Excise duty under Rule 18. The revisional authority has interfered with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The order of the VBC 3 wp3965.10-28.6 revisional authority dated 10 July 2009 is called into question in these proceedings. These Petitions form part of a batch of the Petitions, including Writ Petition 3956 of 2010 (Union of India Vs. Rainbow Silks) in which a judgment has been delivered by this Court yesterday. Both the Learned Counsel state that this petition will stand covered by the decision in Rainbow Silks. For the reasons already contained in the order in the companion petition, the impugned order of the revisional authority is set aside. The proceedings are restored back to the file of the revisional authority for a fresh disposal. All the rights and contentions of the parties are kept open. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. ( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) ( Anoop V. Mohta, J.)