9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sons can be passed by the respondents dealing with them. It could not be that a cryptic communication satisfies the requirement of a proper and speaking order being passed. Therefore, it would be open for the petitioner to raise all contentions, including that the policy circular, a copy of which is annexed to the writ petition as annexure-B, should not be relied upon to deny the refund. - respondents shall deal with the same while passing a speaking order on the Refund Application. - Petition disposed of. - Writ Petition No. 9312 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 23-9-2014 - S. C. Dharmadhikari And A. K. Menon,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Prakash Shah, PDS Legal For the Respondents : Mr. A C Singh, Additional Solicitor General Mrs S V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Petitioner's Refund Claims. 2. The reliefs are claimed in the backdrop of the claim of refund by the petitioner. The petitioner claims to be a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 30 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and they have a factory at Navi Mumbai. The petitioner states that they approached the authorities by referring to the foreign trade policy No.16 (RE-2012/2009-14) because of the activities of supplying goods. The unit of the petitioners uses the goods which have been supplied by another unit of the petitioner called DTA unit which has been supplying goods on payment of Cenvat duty under claim for rebate to the petitioner's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies not by a speaking order and after hearing the petitioner but merely by two communications, copies of which are annexed to this writ petition at annexures E-1 and E-2 at page Nos.32 33. They read as under:- SEEPZ SEZ/EOU/TED-184/J-S, 2012//2012-13/3937 April 1, 2013, M/s. Sandoz Pvt. Ltd. MIDC Plot No.8-A1/1,8-A/2, 8-B, TTC Industrial Area, Kalwe Block. Village Dighe, Navi Mumbai-400708. Sub : Application for refund of TED claim for the period July- Sept., 2012- reg. Sirs, Kindly refer to your application dated 29.10.2012 and 22.11.2012 on the subject cited above. In this connection we write to inform you that Director General of Foreign trade, Ministry of Commerce Industry has issued Policy Circular No.16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anagement and adherence to discipline of budget would be compromised if refund is provided, in cases, where exemption is mandated. In fact, in such cases the relevant taxes should not have been collected to begin with. And, if, there has been an error / oversight committed, then the agency collecting the tax would refund it, rather than seeking reimbursement from another agency. Accordingly, it is clarified that in respect of supplies, as stated at Para 2 above, no refund of TED should be provided by RAs of DGFT / Office of Development Commissioners, because such supplies are ab-initio exempted from payment of excise duty . A copy of Policy Circular is also enclosed herewith. In view of the above your request for refund of TED claim for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mplied with the same. 8. In these circumstances, we expected the respondents not to raise any objection in dealing with the refund application as such and passing a speaking order thereon after hearing the petitioner or its representative. We are happy that the learned Additional Solicitor General has agreed to our suggestion and on instructions stated before us that a personal hearing would be given to the Petitioner and a speaking order will be passed by the Respondents thereafter. We accept these statements as undertakings given to this Court. We direct accordingly. 9. Mr.Shah submits that the respondents should not merely rely upon the policy circular to reject the refund application or by relying on the same alone reject the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
