9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 623 - HC - CustomsRefund of terminal excise duty (TED) - Supply of manufactured goods to 100% EOU - Deemed export - Denial in terms of the provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14 framed under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 - whether the petitioner is entitled for refund of the Terminal Excise Duty? - the decision in the case of KONDOI METAL POWERS MFT. CO. PVT. LTD., v. UNKON OF INDIA 2014 (2) TMI 773 - DELHI HIGH COURT referred - Held that - the decision of the Delhi High Court would squarely cover the case on hand, as the Court took into consideration of the fact that subsequent amendment was made to the existing regime which in effect liberalised 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 respondent is directed to process the refund claim in accordance with 2009 Policy, by taking into consideration the petitioner s refund Application and pass appropriate orders, within a period of three months - no necessity to test the correctness of the Policy - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Challenge to rejection of refund claims, challenge to Policy Circular No. 16 dated 15.03.2013, entitlement for refund of Terminal Excise Duty. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the rejection of their refund claims and the Policy Circular No. 16 dated 15.03.2013. The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to a refund of the Terminal Excise Duty (TED). The Commissioner of Central Excise contended that the petitioner was not entitled to a refund, citing the Policy Circular. The petitioner sought to have their refund applications considered without reference to the Policy Circular, aiming for a prospective effect to process the refund claim. The Court noted that a similar issue was addressed in a previous case involving a DTA unit supplying to 100% EOU, where the Court allowed the Writ Petition based on the decision of the Delhi High Court. The Court emphasized that subsequent amendments liberalizing the position should not deny the refund scheme for payments already made. The Court referred to the decision of the Delhi High Court, which held that the petitioner was entitled to a refund based on the existing policy provisions. The Court quashed the impugned orders and directed the authorities to process the refund claims within a specified timeframe. The Court held that the decision of the Delhi High Court bound the respondents in the present case, leading to the allowance of the Writ Petition and the quashing of the impugned order. The Court directed the third respondent to process the refund claim in accordance with the 2009 Policy, considering the petitioner's refund application. In conclusion, the Court allowed the Writ Petitions challenging the rejection of refund claims, set aside the impugned order, and directed the processing of the refund claim in line with the 2009 Policy. Consequently, there was no need to further examine the correctness of Policy Circular No. 16 dated 15.03.2016, leading to the closure of the related Writ Petition. No costs were awarded, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were also closed.
|
