JUDGMENT 1. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner M/s. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. for issuance of a writ of mandamus or direction to the respondent Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, the Commissioner of Central Excise and Assistant Commissioner of Central 5 Excise & Customs, Central Excise Division, to implement the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur by issuing further a writ of mandamus to grant rebate of Rs. 2.32 crores to the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner-unit has further sought a direction to grant interest under Section 11 BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the amount of Rs. 10 2.32 crores which it claims to have paid to the respondents by way of Excise Duty. 2. The dispute between the petitioner-unit and the respondent- department of Central Excise & Customs, is confined to the question as to whether the petitioner-unit is entitled to a rebate on export of M.M. Yarn, and 15 whether petitioner-unit is entitled to the claim of refund in view of the claim of rebate on duty paid on the input of the goods exported under ARE-1 so as to debit the amount equivalent to rebate/refund of claim in its Cenvat Credit account. 3. Three show cause notices were issued to the petitioner calling for an explanation as to why their claim of refund should not be rejected on the ground that only one rebate claim is admissible under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rule, 2002 read with Notification No. 41/2001-CE (NT) dated 26.6.2001. The authority had rejected the rebate claim of the petitioner specifically on the ground that the petitioner unit having already taken rebate on the input product which was used for manufacturing the finished product. he cannot be permitted to claim the refund for the second time on the ground that he is entitled to a rebate on the finished product on the basis of notification which permits grant of rebate to an Exporter. Although it is ;Ai disputed that an exporter would be entitled to a rebate on the goods which he exports after manufacturing the finished product, it is not entitled to claim rebate twice as Rule 18 in this regard, lays down as follows : "Rule 18. Although it is ;Ai disputed that an exporter would be entitled to a rebate on the goods which he exports after manufacturing the finished product, it is not entitled to claim rebate twice as Rule 18 in this regard, lays down as follows : "Rule 18. -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 of processing of such goods and the rebate shall be subject to such conditions or limitations, if any, and fulfillment of such procedure, as may be specified in the notification." 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) appears to have allowed the claim of rebate raised at the instance of the petitioner-unit on export of goods but a revision has been preferred by the respondent-department of Central Excise and Customs which is subjudice and thus pending for consideration before the competent authority being the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. 5. A grievance has been raised in this writ petition that the Commissioner (Appeals) having allowed the claim and no stay order having been passed by the Revisional Authority, it is incumbent upon the respondent-department to refund the amount of Rs. 2.32 crores which is liable to be refunded by way of a rebate which has been allowed by the: Commissioner, Central Excise while entertaining the appeal against the order passed by the Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India relying upon Rule 18, submitted that in view of this rule, the petitioner-unit could not be granted rebate for the second time as he has already claimed rebate earlier on the input of the goods which were used for manufacturing the finished product and once the rebate was granted at the time of using raw material by way of inputs, it is not open for them to claim rebate on the finished product for the second time as the rule does not permit to that effect. 7. We have examined the contentions of the counsel appearing for the. 7. We have examined the contentions of the counsel appearing for the. contesting parties and we have noticed that the provision of R. 18 Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with, the provisions of Notification No. 21/2004-CE (NT) dated 6.9.2004 and notification No. 41/2001 -CE (NT) dated 26.6.2001 envisages that although claim of rebate on export goods is fit to be allowed to an Exporter, the same is subject to factual verification etc. of the claim as, vets held in the case of M/s. Sangam Spinners, Jaipur passed by the Commissioner under Order No. 609-654/05 of the Government of India dated 14.12.2005. Thus it is crystal clear that while claiming the rebate on the finished products which have been exported or while claiming refund of the amount paid towards excise duty in view of the rebate claimed for exports, the same can be allowed provided the verification in regard to claim of refund is made by the competent authority as to whether the rebate has already been granted to the exporter earlier or not at the time of using raw material as rebate for the second time cannot be claimed by the exporter. 8. In the wake of the objection of the counsel appearing for the Union of India to the effect that the petitioner has already availed the rebate earlier on the inputs which have been used before starting the manufacture, which of course has been denied by the counsel for the petitioner-unit, we do not deem it appropriate to deal with the factual dispute as a revision is already pending before the Joint Secretary, Central Excise &,Customs, and it is for that authority to come to a conclusion as to whether rebate has already been claimed by the petitioner-unit or not which according to it is fit to be refunded on the basis that it is entitled to a further rebate at the time of exporting finished product as it had never been allowed or granted any rebate earlier while using the raw material by way of inputs. To clarify the position further, 5 we reiterate that the revisional authority obviously will decide the factual aspects of the matter as to whether the petitioner-unit is claiming refund of the amount by way of rebate for the second time or it has never claimed or allowed rebate earlier on this count. To clarify the position further, 5 we reiterate that the revisional authority obviously will decide the factual aspects of the matter as to whether the petitioner-unit is claiming refund of the amount by way of rebate for the second time or it has never claimed or allowed rebate earlier on this count. It goes without saying that if the rebate has already been allowed in favour of the petitioner-unit earlier, then it would ) not be possible to grant him rebate for the second time under Rule 18 as also the notification referred to hereinbefore. If however no rebate has been granted to the petitioner-unit earlier at the time of use of inputs by way of raw material, then of course, it is for the revisional authority to consider the correctness of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) before 5 upholding the same. We direct the revisional authority to decide the matter expeditiously but not later than a period of three months from today in view of the huge claim lying pending with the respondent. 9. The writ petition, in view of the aforesaid observations be treated as disposed of.Writ petition disposed of with above observation. *******