Judgment Akil Kureshi, J.—These petitions filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat raise similar questions of law and facts. They are therefore, being heard together and disposed of by this common order. In all material aspects since facts are common, for the sake of convenience, we may note such facts as emerging from record of Special Civil Application No. 16269/2010. 2. Respondent M/s. Roman Overseas is an exporter. It had purchased certain materials for its manufacturing activity for the purpose of export from one M/s. Unique Exports. Necessary documents and invoices etc. were found to be in order at the relevant time when respondent M/s. Roman Overseas made such purchases. Significantly, such documents revealed that the goods supplied by M/s Unique Exports to M/s. Roman Overseas had suffered excise duty at the rates applicable. Upon eventual export of the goods manufactured by M/s. Roman Overseas with the use of inputs supplied by M/s. Unique Exports, M/s. Roman Overseas filed six rebate claims totalling to Rs. 17,00,163/- before the department for the duty paid on such goods in terms of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2.1 While processing such rebate claims, the Range officer verified the genuineness of the duty payment particulars with respect to the goods supplied by M/s. Unique Exports. Upon such verification it was found that M/s. Unique Exports had purportedly purchased such goods from two agencies namely, M/s. Amar Enterprise and M/s. Harikrishna Enterprise. However, such agencies were found to be non-existent. It was thus noted that M/s. Unique Exports had falsely claimed cenvat credit on the basis of invoices issued by such non-existent firms. M/s. Unique Exports had since passed on such cenvat credit to M/s. Roman Overseas, department was of the opinion that M/s. Roman Overseas is not entitled to claim rebate since no duty was ever paid on the inputs received by M/s. Roman Overseas from M/s. Unique Exports. 2.2 On the basis of such facts, a show cause notice came to be issued against respondent M/s. Roman Overseas on 29.3.2005 by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat. In the notice, it was alleged that M/s. Unique Exports had taken cenvat credit on the basis of invoices issued by non-existent firm and passed on cenvat credit fraudulently to present respondent. In the notice, it was alleged that M/s. Unique Exports had taken cenvat credit on the basis of invoices issued by non-existent firm and passed on cenvat credit fraudulently to present respondent. It was thus stated that since no excise duty on inputs used for exports was actually paid, M/s. Roman Overseas was not entitled to claim any rebate for such exports. M/s. Roman Overseas was called upon to show cause why rebate claim of Rs. 17,00,163/- should not be rejected under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 41/2001. 2.3 Respondent herein M/s. Roman Overseas appeared before the authority, filed its objections, were also heard in person. By order dated 20.3.2006, however, the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Surat ruled against respondent M/s. Roman Overseas, disallowed the rebate claimed primarily holding that : “In the above case I find that when the manufacturer has availed the Cenvat credit on the basis of invoices issued by the non-existing units and passed on such Cenvat credit vide invoice No. 07 to 12 all dated 05.05.04 for claiming the Rebate claim. Therefore, the whole credit circulated by the non existing firm which have been declared bogus and the manufacturer of the goods have passed on such inadmissible Cenvat credit to the Exporter for availing the Rebate claim shall be inadmissible.” In addition to above conclusions the Competent Authority also relied on Rule 9(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 which requires the manufacturer or producer taking cenvat credit on inputs or capital goods to take all reasonable steps to verify that such goods or inputs are such on which appropriate duty of excise has been paid. Before the competent authority, though respondent M/s. Roman Overseas denied any involvement in such fraud and claimed to be bona fide purchaser, did not dispute that M/s. Unique Exports had not paid duty at the time of clearance of goods. On behalf of respondent M/s. Roman Overseas, it was contended that department is at liberty to proceed against suppliers but not against M/s. Roman Overseas. One more significant aspect that emerges from the order in original is that as per the competent authority, respondent M/s. Roman Overseas was not part of the fraud in nonpayment of excise duty. On behalf of respondent M/s. Roman Overseas, it was contended that department is at liberty to proceed against suppliers but not against M/s. Roman Overseas. One more significant aspect that emerges from the order in original is that as per the competent authority, respondent M/s. Roman Overseas was not part of the fraud in nonpayment of excise duty. 2.4 Aggrieved by order in original, respondent M/s. Roman Overseas carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) by his order dated 20.3.2006 allowed the appeal, reversed the order passed by the competent authority, held that respondent M/s. Roman Overseas is entitled to rebate as claimed. In the order it was emphasized that there was no allegation that M/s. Roman Overseas and manufactures are related persons or that such sale was not principle to principle basis. It was observed that M/s. Roman Overseas had taken full precaution to ensure that manufacturer supplier is registered with the department and invoices issued by them are in order. 2.5 Department, aggrieved by the order of Commissioner (Appeals) approached the Government invoking powers of revision under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act. Such revision was however, dismissed by impugned order dated 7.1.2010. Aggrieved, department is before us challenging the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as confirmed by the Government. 3. Counsel for the department submitted that on the goods purchased by respondent M/s. Roman Overseas from M/s. Unique Exports, no duty was paid. In that view of the matter, no rebate could be claimed under Section 18 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. It was contended that Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Government committed an error in deciding otherwise. 3.1 Counsel relied on Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 as well as on the Government notifications laying down conditions on which rebate on duty paid could be claimed. Reference to these provisions and notification will be made at a slightly later stage in the order. 4. On the other hand, Counsel for respondent M/s. Roman Overseas supported the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Government and submitted that insofar as respondent M/s. Roman Overseas is concerned, duty was duly paid. Respondent M/s. Roman Overseas had taken all necessary precautions. Being a bona fide purchaser, when it is admitted that goods were eventually exported, rebate claimed could not have been denied. Respondent M/s. Roman Overseas had taken all necessary precautions. Being a bona fide purchaser, when it is admitted that goods were eventually exported, rebate claimed could not have been denied. 4.1 Counsel relied on the following decisions : (1) In case of Taparia Overseas (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 2002(161) ELT 47 (Bom.), wherein Bombay High Court found that all the petitioners had obtained licenses for valuable consideration without any notice of the fraud alleged to have been committed by the original license holders. In that background, it was observed that concept that fraud vitiates subsequent transactions would not apply. The Court allowed exemption of duty on goods imported. (2) In Tax Appeal No. 1263/2006 dated 27.1.2006, wherein the Division Bench of this Court was considering the effect of purchase of advance license under DEEC scheme, which was found to have been obtained on forged or false export documents before DGFT, the Bench confirmed the view of the tribunal holding that eventual purchaser cannot be denied the benefits, making following observations : “15. The aforesaid decisions would apply with full force to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as the endorsement of transferability had been made by the licensing authority. It is not the case of the licensing authority that the endorsement was fraudulently obtained, nor has the licensing authority taken any steps to cancel the said licence. In the circumstances, the Customs authorities could not have refused to grant the benefit under the said licence. The Tribunal was therefore, justified in setting aside the duty demand.” (3) In case of C.C., Amritsar vs. Ajaykumar & Co. reported in 2009 (92) RLT 883 (SC), wherein judgement of the tribunal in case of Ajay Kumar & Co. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar reported in 2006 (205) ELT 747 was confirmed wherein tribunal had observed as under : “6. By applying the ratio as laid down by the Court in the above decisions, to the fact of the present case, it has to be held that the imports made under the DEPB Scrips, which were valid at the time of import, the subsequent cancellation of the same on the ground that original allottee procured them by fraud will not have any bearing upon the imports made by the appellant. There is nothing in the impugned order to reflect upon any mala fide on the part of the appellant or to show that he was a party to the fraudulent obtaining of scrips by M/s. Parker or had any knowledge about the tainted character of the scrips. As such, we are of the view that the imports made by the appellant in terms of the said scrips cannot be held invalid.” 5. Having thus heard learned advocates for the parties and having perused the documents on record, few facts emerge almost indisputedly : (1) Respondent M/s. Roman Overseas had made purchases of certain goods from M/s. Unique Exports for manufacturing its export goods. (2) In the goods so purchased, respondent M/s. Roman Overseas had availed cenvat credit as passed on to it by M/s. Unique Exports. (3) Goods were eventually exported giving rise to rebate claims. (4) M/s. Unique Exports had passed on cenvat credit on the goods on which duty was never paid. (5) There are no allegations even in the show cause notice against respondent M/s. Roman Overseas that it was part of such fraud or had any knowledge about the same. (6) Though as noted earlier, in order in original, the competent authority relied on Rule 9(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 attributing lack of care on part of respondent M/s. Roman Overseas, same was not part of the show cause notice. No allegations to this respect were made. Respondent M/s. Roman Overseas was thus not put to notice that it had to answer to the allegations of failure on its part to take necessary care as per the statutory provisions to ensure that the goods were duty paid. (7) In fact, the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Government both have on facts come to the conclusion that respondent M/s. Roman Overseas had taken all necessary care. 6. On basis of above facts emerging on record, we have to decide whether Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Government committed any error in holding that respondent M/s. Roman Overseas is entitled to claim rebate. 7. Rebates, in case as present, are governed by Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules which reads as under : “18. 6. On basis of above facts emerging on record, we have to decide whether Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Government committed any error in holding that respondent M/s. Roman Overseas is entitled to claim rebate. 7. Rebates, in case as present, are governed by Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules which reads as under : “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 fulfillment of such procedure, as may be specified in the notification.” 8. Additionally, such rebates are governed by conditions laid down in the notifications issued by the Government of India from time to time. In the present case, Notification No. 19/2004 would be relevant which lays down conditions for claiming such rebates. Relevant condition is condition No. 2, particularly Clause (a) thereof which reads as under : “(a) that the excisable goods shall be exported after payment of duty, directly from a factory or warehouse, except as otherwise permitted by the Central Board of Excise and Customs by a general or special order” 9. We may clarify that part of claim fall when such notification No. 19/2004 was not in operation. It is however, not in dispute that previous notification also provided for similar conditions. We would therefore, refer to condition No. 2(a) for all practical purposes. 10. From the material on record noted above, we find that insofar as respondent M/s. Roman Overseas is concerned, it had purchased goods after payment of duty to the manufacturer. On such duty, respondent M/s. Roman Overseas was within its rights to claim cenvat credit which was passed on by the seller of the goods i.e. M/s. Unique Exports. It is of-course a fact that such goods were not duty paid. Fact however, remains that there are no allegations that respondent M/s. Roman Overseas was part of any such fraud, had any knowledge of the fact that duty was not paid or that it had failed to take any precaution as required under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules which reads as under : 11. Fact however, remains that there are no allegations that respondent M/s. Roman Overseas was part of any such fraud, had any knowledge of the fact that duty was not paid or that it had failed to take any precaution as required under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules which reads as under : 11. In view of above discussion, we find that respondent M/s. Roman Overseas cannot be denied the benefit of rebate claims. Particularly, when there are no allegations that respondent M/s. Roman Overseas either had knowledge or had even failed to take basic care required in law or in general terms to verify that goods were duty paid. 12. The language of Rule 18 however, may pose some question. In particular, it may be contended that Rule 18 envisages rebate for duty paid. Term duty paid as per the department would be duty paid to the Government and not otherwise and when no duty is paid, there can be no rebate. In our view, however Rule 18 also can be looked from this angle. Insofar as respondent M/s. Roman Overseas is concerned, it had paid full duty partly by paying duty directly to the Government and partly by availing cenvat credit. To do so, they had made payment of part duty to seller of goods. Insofar as respondent M/s. Roman Overseas is concerned, therefore, entire duty is paid by them of which it is claiming rebate of the duty paid on excisable goods upon eventual export. 13. At this stage, we would like to deal with the judgements cited by the Counsel for the department (1) Reliance was placed on decision in case of New India Assurance Co. Shimla vs. Kamla and others reported in (2001) 4 Supreme Court Cases 342. In that case a driving license upon its expiry was presented for renewal. Authorities unmindful of its defects, renewed the same. The Insurance Claim repudiated the claim citing the reason that the original license was forged. It was contended that even if previously license may have been forged, upon renewal would be rendered valid. It was in this background that Supreme Court observed that “What was originally a forgery would remain null and void forever and it would not acquire legal validity at any time by whatever process of sanctification subsequently done on it. It was contended that even if previously license may have been forged, upon renewal would be rendered valid. It was in this background that Supreme Court observed that “What was originally a forgery would remain null and void forever and it would not acquire legal validity at any time by whatever process of sanctification subsequently done on it. Forgery is antithesis to legality and law cannot afford to validate a forgery.” (2) Reliance was placed on decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Golden Tools International vs. Joint DGFT, Ludhiana reported in 2006 (199) ELT 213 (P&H). It was however, a case where the petitioners themselves had imported duty free item on the basis of DEPB allowance which was found to have been fraudulently obtained. It was in this background that the Court held that same would tantamount to contravention of provisions of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. Penalty imposed was thus upheld. (3) Reliance was also placed on decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Friends Trading Co. vs. Union of India reported in 2010 (254) ELT 652 (P&H), wherein again DEPB scrips were found to have been obtained by producing false documents. There again the person claiming the duty exemption was the same as one who was found to have committed fraud. (4) Reliance was placed on decision in case of Sheela Dyeing & Printing Mills P. ltd vs. C.C.E. & C., Surat-I reported in 2008 (232) ELT 408 (Guj.), wherein issue involved was whether while taking cenvat credit on inputs, the appellant had taken reasonable steps to ensure that goods are duty paid. It was in this background relying on Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of Cenvat Credit Rules, Court found that appellant had failed to take such care. In the present case, we have already noticed that such averments and allegations are not on record. In fact findings are to the contrary. 14. In the result, we are of the view that impugned orders require no interference. 14.1 We may also notice that department has issued notice to the original firms namely M/s. Amar Enterprise and M/s. Harikrishna Enterprise for recovery of duty and penalty. This would thus show that department is pursuing the original entities for recovery of cenvat credit wrongly claimed whereas on other hand it is denying rebate claim of the manufacturer exporters. 14.1 We may also notice that department has issued notice to the original firms namely M/s. Amar Enterprise and M/s. Harikrishna Enterprise for recovery of duty and penalty. This would thus show that department is pursuing the original entities for recovery of cenvat credit wrongly claimed whereas on other hand it is denying rebate claim of the manufacturer exporters. We may also notice that against M/s. Unique exporters, no proceedings have been initiated. 14.2 We may also record that though Counsel for respondent M/s. Roman Overseas contended that without cancellation of cenvat credit granted to M/s. Unique Exports, rebate claimed by respondent M/s. Roman Overseas cannot be declined, we are of the view that such issue cannot be raised by respondent M/s. Roman Overseas in facts of the present case. As already noted, before the competent authority the stand of respondent M/s. Roman Overseas was clear that fraud was not disputed, but that respondent M/s. Roman Overseas was not part of such fraud and that all reasonable care was taken to ensure that goods were duty paid. 15. Before closing, however, we may reiterate that the facts in present case are peculiar. Had there been any allegations and evidence to show that respondent M/s. Roman Overseas was either part of the fraud in nonpayment of excise duty or had knowledge about the same or even had failed to take care as envisaged under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, situation would have been different. In the present case, when no such facts emerge, we have no hesitation in confirming the view of the Government. 16. Petitions therefore, fail. Same are dismissed.