JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “The petitioner therefore respectfully prays that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and: (i) By an appropriate writ or direction, the order impugned dated 06.12.2018 (Annexure-P/1) passed by Revisional Authority may kindly be quashed and set aside; (ii) It may kindly be held that once the actual consumption has been verified after following statutory provisions/notifications SION norms cannot be applied in determining the wastage. (iii) By an appropriate writ or direction, the impugned order dated 30.09.2016 (Annexure-P/10) passed by the appellate authority may also be quashed. (iv) By an appropriate writ or direction impugned OIO No.80-86/2012 dated 30.04.2012 (Annexure-P/6) may also be quashed. (v) it may kindly be directed that the amount & interest thereon, already paid by the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned orders, be refunded to the petitioner with interest. (vi) Any other appropriate order, which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed. (vii) Costs may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner filed rebate claims for grant of rebate on duty paid on the material used in manufacturing of export goods under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 2002’) read with notification 21/04-CE (NT) dated 06.09.2004, as amended. Thereafter, the original adjudicating authority sanctioned a rebate of 7 exports made by the petitioner unit, against which, the department filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), and in the meantime, 7 SCN’s all dated 14.11.2008 were issued; the appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide OIA No. 51-57 (DK) CE/JPR-II/2009 dated 03.02.2009. 2.1. Thereafter, the department filed a revision application before the Joint Secretary, GOI, New Delhi against the aforesaid OIA and the same was decided vide order no.992/11-CX dated 26.07.2011, while holding thus : “. . . . . .that ratio of consumption of material in the manufacture of exported goods may be worked out taking into account the wastage prescribed in the relevant SION norms/CBEC Circular dated 29.05.2005 in case wastage shown by the appellants on higher side. . . . . .that ratio of consumption of material in the manufacture of exported goods may be worked out taking into account the wastage prescribed in the relevant SION norms/CBEC Circular dated 29.05.2005 in case wastage shown by the appellants on higher side. It was also observed in the order that the rebate cannot be denied on the ground of non-filing of declaration of some inputs if use of said inputs in the manufacture of exported goods was not in dispute and the duty paid inputs were received directly from the factory of manufacture/registered dealer as prescribed under Notification 21/04-CE (NT) dated 06.09.2004.” Thereafter, on 17.07.2012, a corrigendum was issued, to the following effect : “CORRIGENDUM Last three lines i.e. of para 8.2 of the above order may read as under: “The ratio of consumption of materials on the manufacturing of export products may be worked out taking into account the wastage prescribed in the relevant SION norms CBEC Circular dated 29-05-1995 if the wastage shown by application is found on higher side.”” 2.2. Subsequently, the department raised a demand of Rs.3,98,982/- vide order dated 02.05.2012; aggrieved from the said action, the petitioner filed a writ petition (D.B.C.W.P. No. 8059/2012) before this Hon’ble Court, whereafter, the adjudicating authority issued the consequential order, therefore, the said writ petition was withdrawn on 14.08.2012 with liberty to question the consequential order before the department authority in the appropriate proceedings. 2.3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Jaipur, NCRB against the order dated 02.05.2012. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 30.09.2016 partly allowed appeal, while reducing the demand from Rs.3,98,982/- to Rs.2,05,576/-; aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a revision application under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Revisional Authority), and the same was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 06.12.2018. Thus, being aggrieved, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Thus, being aggrieved, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order directing applicability of SION norms is not correct because SION norms do not prescribe the wastage as the actual quantity of wastage depends on various parameters and there is no law to apply the SION norms in cases where the manufacturer/exporter has declared the actual input-output ratio which was verified by the department as per the notification dated 06.09.2004. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned orders are against Rule 18 of the Rules, 2002, because limiting the rebate entitlement, contrary to these provisions is unlawful, and therefore, the impugned orders are not justified in law. 3.2. It was also submitted that this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 02.11.2016 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2004/2013 held that the department was not correct in imposing any condition while granting rebate of duty beyond the condition as prescribed under Rule 18 of the Rules, 2002, but the Revisional Authority held that the matter had attained finality by the earlier order dated 26.07.2011 inasmuch as the issue of SION was neither raised in the revision application nor was heard and adjudicated by the Revisional Authority. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the applicability of the SION norms is based on statutory provision, notifications and instructions. It was further submitted that the order passed by the this Hon’ble Court on 02.11.2016 in D.B.C.W.P No. 2004/2013, has not considered the entire statutory provisions, wherein it is provided that the government may by notification specify certain conditions or limitations, and the procedure and rebate shall be granted, subject to such conditions and limitations, if any, of such procedure. 4.1. It was further submitted that the Notification No. 21/2004-CE (NT) dated 06.09.2004 and instructions were issued vide Circular dated 29.05.1995, showing formula, and SION norms etc. were made applicable to rebate clause. It was also submitted that the applicability of SION norms was upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Baraka Overseas Traders Vs. Director General of Foreign Trade (Civil Appeal No. 1426 of 2001, decided on 11.09.2006), and in the case of Commissioner of Custom Kandla Vs. Man Industries Ltd (I.A. Nos. were made applicable to rebate clause. It was also submitted that the applicability of SION norms was upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Baraka Overseas Traders Vs. Director General of Foreign Trade (Civil Appeal No. 1426 of 2001, decided on 11.09.2006), and in the case of Commissioner of Custom Kandla Vs. Man Industries Ltd (I.A. Nos. 13-16 of 2014 in Civil Appeal Nos. 9726-9729 of 2014, decided on 21.04.2015). 4.2. It was further submitted that as per the aforesaid case law, the order dated 02.11.2016 passed by this Hon’ble Court is distinguishable and not applicable in the present case. 5. It was also submitted that the Adjudicating Authority, Appellate Authority, as well as Revisional Authority have correctly interpreted the rules as per the precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, and thereafter, passed the impugned orders, which are justified in law. 6. Heard learned counsel of the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 7. This Court observes that the petitioner filed the aforementioned rebate claims for grant of rebate on duty paid on material used in manufacture of export goods, and the same was sanctioned. Thereafter, the department filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), and the same was dismissed on 03.02.2009. Subsequently, the department filed a revision application and the same was decided on 26.07.2011. 7.1. Subsequently, the department raised a demand of Rs.3,98,982/-, aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition (D.B.C.W.P. No. 8059/2012) before this Court, and the said writ petition was withdrawn on 14.08.2012 with liberty to question the consequential order before the department in appropriate proceedings. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the aforementioned appeal against the order dated 02.05.2016 before the appellate authority, and the said appeal was partly allowed, while reducing the demand from Rs.3,98,982/- to Rs.2,05,576/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a revision application before the Revisional Authority, and the same was dismissed vide the impugned order. 8. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the aforementioned appeal against the order dated 02.05.2016 before the appellate authority, and the said appeal was partly allowed, while reducing the demand from Rs.3,98,982/- to Rs.2,05,576/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a revision application before the Revisional Authority, and the same was dismissed vide the impugned order. 8. This Court further observes that the department filed a revision application against sanctioning of the rebate, wherein the revisional authority passed the order dated 26.07.2011; in furtherance, the amended corrigendum dated 17.07.2012 and states that : “CORRIGENDUM Last three lines i.e. of para 8.2 of the above order may read as under: “The ratio of consumption of materials on the manufacturing of export products may be worked out taking into account the wastage prescribed in the relevant SION norms CBEC Circular dated 29-05-1995 if the wastage shown by application is found on higher side.”” 8.1. This Court also observes that after the said order, the department passed the recovery order in question and the order dated 26.07.2011 and amended corrigendum dated 17.07.2012 were not challenged before any higher authority, thus, the same had attained finality. This Court further observes that vide the order dated 02.11.2016 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2004/2013, this Hon’ble Court had only quashed the order dated 16.11.2011, while the order dated 26.07.2011 and amended corrigendum 17.07.2012 were not even challenged, and therefore, the order dated 02.11.2016 as passed in the aforesaid writ petition is on a different footing and does not have any bearing on the present case. 9. This Court also observes that the petitioner itself has not contested the SION norms before the Appellate Authority, which has been recorded in the order dated 30.09.2016 by the Appellate Authority, while indicating that, “I find that the appellant has not disputed these SION norms”. This Court further observes that once the petitioner has not raised any dispute with regard to the SION norms before the Appellate Authority, it cannot now raise any dispute in this regard in the present petition. 10. This Court further observes that once the petitioner has not raised any dispute with regard to the SION norms before the Appellate Authority, it cannot now raise any dispute in this regard in the present petition. 10. This Court further observes that the Adjudicating Authority at the time of issuance of the recovery order has not rightly calculated the SION norms, and thus, thereafter, the Appellate Authority changed the above-said calculation and reduced the recovery amount, while making correct calculation as per the SION norms; the said order has been upheld by the Revisional Authority, vide the impugned order, which is justified in law. 11. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition. 12. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.