2001 (10) TMI 119 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
The appeal concerns the entitlement of the respondent for a refund of terminal Excise Duty under the import policy.

Summary:

Issue 1: Entitlement for Refund of Terminal Excise Duty
The respondent, a manufacturer of refractory items supplied to an exporter, sought a refund of terminal Excise Duty under the import policy. The petitioner's goods were considered 'Deemed Exports' under the policy, entitling them to certain benefits, including the refund of terminal excise duty. Despite previous refunds, the DGFT refused the current refund, citing ab initio exemption under Central Excise Rules. The High Court held that the respondent is entitled to the refund under Para 122 of the import policy, directing authorities to refund the excise duty paid with interest.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Duty Exemption Scheme
The petitioner contended that they were entitled to exemption from excise duty under a specific notification, but the excise duty was paid to the department. The respondent argued that as a holder of an advance intermediate license, they supplied goods under the duty exemption scheme, qualifying as 'Deemed Exports' and thus entitled to duty exemption benefits. The Court found that the petitioner fulfilled the conditions for 'Deemed Exports' and should be refunded the terminal excise duty.

Issue 3: Claim for Refund and Provisions of the Handbook
The department rejected the claim for refund, stating the petitioner had wrongly claimed exemption of duty. However, the Court held that even if the exemption claim was rejected, the petitioner could still claim the benefit of refund of terminal excise duty under the policy. The Handbook's lack of provision for such refund does not negate the entitlement under the policy.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the respondent's entitlement to the refund of terminal excise duty under the import policy. The Court emphasized that fulfilling the conditions for one benefit does not preclude claiming another benefit under the policy, and the lack of specific procedures in the Handbook does not negate the entitlement under the policy.