9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to refund is permissible. The eligibility for refund, therefore, would be in terms of these provisions and the unit has to apply for such refund - authorities in this case appear to have proceeded to make an order adverse to the petitioner and proceeded to hold that the petitioner was disentitled to the benefit of refund in view of some clarification given by the Policy Interpretation Committee, in its meeting of 04.12.2012 to the effect that “refund of CENVAT credit provisions are available under Excise rules and CENVAT rules which should be availed of rather than claiming refund”. This reasoning appears to have prevailed with the Policy Relaxation Committee as well in this case. Court also is unable to see the reason why the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g two relevant periods January 2012 to March 2012 and April 2012 to June 2012 - the writ petitioner made applications in this regard to the third respondent. The applications for refund were made on 29.08.2012 and 16.11.2012. The third respondent denied these refund claims by separate orders dated 19.10.2012 and 02.11.2012. In compliance with the provisions of the policy, the petitioner wrote to the second respondent, claiming relaxation, by two letters dated 27.12.2012 and 28.12.2012. These two were turned down on 14.05.2013. 3. It is contended by the petitioner that its unit and the supplies are entitled to be treated as deemed export as defined by para 6.11 of the 2009 policy in question. Elaborating on this, it is submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tutory regime would be under the concerned provisions of Central Excise Act. 5. As is evident from the above discussion, the petitioner claims to be engaged in entirely deemed export an assertion which is not essentially disputed. The entitlement of such units which supply goods to export oriented units is spelt-out in paras 6.11 and 8.1 of the 2009 policy. Para 8.2 to the extent it is relevant reads as follows: 8.2 Categories of Supply Following categories of supply of goods by main-sub-contractors shall be regarded as Deemed Exports : (a) Supply of goods against Advance Authorisation/Advance Authorisation for annual requirement/DFIA; (b) Supply of goods to EOU/STP/EHTP/BTP; (c) Supply of capital goods to EPCG Authorisation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Yes Yes Yes (c) Yes Yes Yes (d) Yes Yes Yes (f) Yes Yes Yes (h) No Yes Yes (i) Yes Yes No (j) Yes Yes Yes 7. The eligibility for refund is provided by para 8.5 in the following terms: 8.5 Eligibility for refund of terminal excise duty/drawback Supply of goods will be eligible for refund of terminal excise duty in terms of Para 8.3(c) of FTP, provided recipient of goods does not avail CENVAT credit/rebate on such goods. A declaration to this effect, in Annexure II of ANF 8, from recipient of goods, shall be submitted by applicant. Similarly, suppli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clarification given by the Policy Interpretation Committee, in its meeting of 04.12.2012 to the effect that refund of CENVAT credit provisions are available under Excise rules and CENVAT rules which should be availed 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
