2018 (10) TMI 1568 - HC - Customs

Reimbursement of CST under FTP - EOU - Refund claim - duty paid under protest - Debonding of unit - reimbursement in relation to the petitioners purchases from EOUs - Departmental authorities would not permit debonding of the petitioners manufacturing unit unless and until all dues were cleared - Held that - As per the Foreign Trade Policy prevailing at the relevant time, the petitioner would claim reimbursement of central sales tax paid on the purchases made. Such reimbursements were granted at the relevant time. Later on the department issued demands for returning such reimbursement in relation to the petitioners purchases from EOUs. The Court held that there was no such condition in the Foreign Trade Policy and the condition sought to be read or imposed through the procedure laid down in Hand Book of Procedures could not override the provisions contained in the Foreign Trade Policy. Demand raised in show cause notices would not be enforced against the petitioners - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of request for dropping show cause notices for confirmation of demand and refund of deposited amount.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged three orders rejecting their request to drop show cause notices for confirmation of demand, seeking a refund of ?45,74,285. The petitioners, engaged in manufacturing dyes, had an Export Oriented Unit (EOU) in Bharuch. They received benefits including reimbursement of central sales tax (CST) on goods purchased and used for manufacturing. The department issued show cause notices for recovery of part of the reimbursement related to purchases from other EOUs. The petitioners wanted to exit the EOU but were not allowed until all dues were cleared. They deposited the amount under protest while contesting the notices. The authority rejected the petitioners' request based on audit findings and EOU regulations.

The Development Commissioner's order was questioned for two reasons. Firstly, dropping the show cause notices due to payment contradicted the ongoing contestation by the petitioners. Secondly, the authority's observation on the inadmissible portion of reimbursement was deemed questionable based on a previous court judgment. The respondents did not contest that the deposit was a condition for debonding, but the act of depositing under protest did not resolve the legal issues. The authority should have provided a legal opinion on the matters raised.

Although the matter could have been remanded for further consideration, the issues raised in the show cause notices were found to be covered by a previous court judgment. This judgment established that the conditions imposed by the Hand Book of Procedures could not override the Foreign Trade Policy provisions. As the facts in this case were similar, the impugned orders were quashed, and the demand raised in the show cause notices was not enforced. The deposited amount was ordered to be refunded by a specified date to avoid interest liability.

In conclusion, all three impugned orders were quashed, and the demand was not enforced against the petitioners. The deposited amount was to be refunded by a set date to prevent interest liability. The petition was disposed of accordingly.