bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.657 OF 2010 M/s.G.N.International ..Petitioner Vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.A.D.Shetty for petitioner. Mr.R.Ashokan for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Rajendra Kumar for respondent No.4. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & S.J.KATHAWALLA,JJ. DATE :- 21st JUNE,2010 P.C. Heard. Perused petition. 2. The issue involved in this petition is as under: Whether M/s.G.N.International have submitted the relevant records to establish that the texturised yarn cleared from the factory of M/s.Jay Bharat Fabrics Mills Ltd. in terms of Notification No.34/94 dated 01/03/1994 have been used in the manufacture of final product which is ultimately exported. It is not the issue whether M/s.G.N.International have fulfilled the export obligation against the advance licences issued to them. 3. The said issue has already been considered by the Lower Appellate Authority viz. Government of India vide impugned order dated 3rd September, 2009, wherein in paragraph Nos.9 and 10, the categorical findings have been recorded, which read as under: “9. The photocopies of invoices-cum-challan of M/s.Jay Bharat Fabrics Mills Ltd. (a job worker) produced by the applicant only established that the texturised yarn was removed from the factory and nothing else. The applicant could not produce any document evidencing movement of texturised yarn from M/s.Jay Bharat Fabrics Mills Ltd. to grey weavers, processors to godown of the applicant. The applicant even have failed to disclose the names of weavers and processors, and it is also not the contention of the applicant that these records have been submitted to any authority. As per detailed findings of the original authority in his order- in-original, that the applicant failed to produce the necessary records showing movement of texturised yarn from the stage of texturised yarn to grey fabrics to processed fabrics to their godown for cutting, packing and onward export. 10. The original authority have sent the documents submitted by the applicant for verification to various authorities, and reports received but in view of the findings above at no point there is link between the texturised yarn and the fabrics exported. This clearly established that the texturised yarn cleared availing the benefit of notification No.34/94 dated 1.3.94 has not been used in manufacture of fabrics which is ultimately exported as contemplated in Notification No.34/94 dated 1.3.94 which is the prime condition for granting exemption under Notification No.34/94 dated 1.3.94. The applicant has intentionally side stepped the main issue and raised irrelevant points in their revision application but has not produced any documents evidencing that the same texturised yarn imported duty free has ultimately been exported by them.” 4. Having gone through the aforesaid findings, the view taken by the authorities below is a reasonable and possible view. No case is made out to demonstrate any perversity in the matter. In this view of the matter, the petition stands dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)