Same Deutz-Fahr India (P) Ltd. Versus Union of India, The Director General of Foreign Trade, The Development Commissioner, MEPZ Special Economic Zone & HEOUs, Commissioner of Central Excise, (Now redesigned as Commissioner of Goods & Service Tax)
Customs
2017 (12) TMI 1114 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMI
MADRAS HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 14-12-2017
W.P.Nos.32596 to 32598 of 2017 and W.M.P.Nos.35922 to 35927 of 2017
Customs
T. S. Sivagnanam, J.
\nFor the Petitioner : Mr. J. Prasanna Kumar
\nFor the Respondent : M\/s. G. Hema, SPCCG Mr.A.P.Srinivas
\nORDER
\nThe petitioner filed these writ petitions for the following reliefs:
\nW.P.No.32596 of 2017 has been filed challenging the Policy Circular issued by the second respondent which denies the Terminal Excise Duty (TED) refund contrary to policy provisions and Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act, 1995.
\nW.P.Nos.32597 and 32598 of 2017 have been filed challenging the rejection letter issued by the third respondent reject<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ourt after taking into consideration the decision of this Court in the case of Raja Crowns and Cans Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 2015 (317) E.L.T. 40 (Mad), the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Sadokz Pvt. Ltd., vs. The Union of India and others reported in 2016-TIOL-1753-HC-MUM-CUS and the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Kondoi Metal Powers Mft. Co. Pvt. Ltd., vs. Union of India reported in 2014 (302) E.L.T. 209 (Del), allowed the writ petitions and directed the authority to consider the refund claim. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n s and perusing the materials placed on record, it is seen that an identical set of facts, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court took a decision in favour of the manufacturer. In fact, in the said case arose out of a decision taken pursuant to the resolution dated 04.12.2012 which is impugned in this writ petition. Therefore, the cause of action in the case before the Delhi High Court was the impugned resolution. Therefore, the decision rendered by the Delhi High Court binds the respondents and the Delhi High Court quoted with the approval in the decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in JDGFT V. IFGL Refractories Limited (cited supra). At this stage, it would be beneficial to refer to the operative portion of the Judgment: = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n vailed of rather than claiming refund . This reasoning appears to have prevailed with the Policy Relaxation Committee as well in this case. This Court is unable to comprehend the rationale of the decision of the second and third respondents who also seem to have suggested that the petitioner should approach the DGFT for appropriate relief or clarification. Neither of the authorities dispute that the petitioner supplied goods to the EOU at the relevant time. Its entitlement, therefore, was defined in terms of the existing policy, i.e. Refund in terms of paras 8.2, 8.3, 8.4 and 8.5 of the 2009 Policy as discussed above. That a subsequent amendment was made to the existing regime which in effect liberalized the position further and exempted payment of TED altogether cannot surely be a reason for denying the scheme for refund of payment already made. The Court also is unable to see the reason why the respondents were of the view that refund claim or benefit under the CENVAT regime under th<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n o costs. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Same Deutz-Fahr India (P) Ltd. Versus Union of India, The Director General of Foreign Trade, The Development Commissioner, MEPZ Special Economic Zone & HEOUs, Commissioner of Central Excise, (Now redesigned as Commissioner of Goods & Service Tax)Customs2017 (12) TMI 1114 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMIMADRAS HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 14-12-2017W.P.Nos.32596 to 32598 of 2017 … Continue reading “Same Deutz-Fahr India (P) Ltd. Versus Union of India, The Director General of Foreign Trade, The Development Commissioner, MEPZ Special Economic Zone & HEOUs, Commissioner of Central Excise, (Now redesigned as Commissioner of Goods & Service Tax”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9560","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9560","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=9560"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9560\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9560"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9560"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9560"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n 5.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent\/Commissioner of Central Excise, pointed out that the Policy Circular has been upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in the case of SADOKZ PVT LTD., v. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS [2016-TIOL-1753-HC-MUM-CUS]. At this stage, <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n “8.It would thus be seen that supplies made to EOUs in terms of para 8.2(b) are entitled to be regarded as deemed exports. The benefits for deemed exports include inter alia exemption from TED where supplies are made against ICD (a term whic<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n 10.In the light of the above finding, it is held that the issue involved in this writ petition is covered by the decision of the Delhi High Court and since the case before the Delhi High Court arose out of the order which was passed pursuant to the resolution impugned in this writ petition, the decision of the Delhi High Court binds the respondents. Thus, following the above referred decision, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and the third respondent is directed to process the refund claim in accordance with the 2009 Policy by taking into consideration the petitioner's refund application dated 16.08.2010 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.”
\n 6.As noticed above, the decision of the Delhi High Court would squarely cover the case on hand, as the Court took into consideration o<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n