2022 (1) TMI 272 - HC - Customs

Refund of terminal excise duty - supplies made against ICB - reliance placed on amended paragraph 8.3(c) of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-2014 - petitioner reiterated that all the transactions made by the petitioner fall before the date of amendment and therefore, the pre-amended paragraph 8.3(c) is to be applied for the purpose of considering the case of the writ petitioner - HELD THAT - The petitioner is of an opinion that their case is to be considered by applying the pre-amended paragraph 8.3(3) and accordingly, appropriate orders are to be passed. This being the factum established, the impugned orders passed by the second respondent in proceedings dated 17-7-2013, 31-10-2013 and 26-9-2013, which was reaffirmed on 25-11-2013 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The second respondent is directed to consider the facts and circumstances with reference to the applications and documents filed by the petitioner and accordingly, take a decision and pass orders as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. I Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of orders passed by the second respondent rejecting the claim.
2. Interpretation of amended paragraph 8.3(c) of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-2014.
3. Application of pre-amended paragraph 8.3(c) in the case.
4. Remand for fresh consideration by the second respondent.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns the quashing of orders passed by the second respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioner, who is engaged in manufacturing lifts, elevators, and components. The petitioner contended that the impugned orders were based on the amended paragraph 8.3(c) of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-2014. The Central Government had made amendments to the policy on 18th April 2013, affecting the exemption of terminal excise duty. The petitioner argued that their transactions predated the amendment and should be considered under the pre-amended paragraph. The court agreed that the second respondent erroneously applied the amended paragraph and directed a remand for fresh consideration based on both the pre-amended and amended paragraphs.

The petitioner emphasized that their case should be assessed using the pre-amended paragraph 8.3(c), leading to the setting aside of the impugned orders. The court ordered the matter to be remanded back to the second respondent for a reevaluation. The second respondent was instructed to review the facts and documents provided by the petitioner and make a decision promptly, preferably within eight weeks. If a personal hearing was requested, it was to be accommodated, and the petitioner was directed to submit relevant documents within two weeks of receiving the order. Ultimately, the writ petitions were allowed with no costs incurred.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of correctly applying the relevant provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-2014 in assessing claims. It underscores the need for meticulous consideration of pre-amended and amended paragraphs to ensure fair treatment of parties involved in transactions subject to policy changes. The court's decision to remand the matter for fresh evaluation reflects the commitment to upholding procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles in administrative decisions related to trade policies and duties.