9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, this objection cannot stand in the way of the petitioner getting refund in the matter. - impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to refund the TED to the petitioner. - Decided in favour of assessee. - W. P. (C) 2344/2015 - - - Dated:- 11-3-2015 - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher,J. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sujit Ghosh, Ms. Kanupriya Bhargava and Ms. Pragya Awasthi, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC with Mr. Ajay Kalra, Advocate ORDER CM No.4201/2015 and 4202/2015 (Exemption) 1. Allowed subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 2344/2015 and CM No.4200/2015 (stay) 2. Issue notice to the respondents. 3. Mr. Narula accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng not done so, its application for refund is not sustainable. 4.6 In the impugned order dated 24.02.2015, Foreign Trade Development Officer after setting out briefly the facts of the case and adverting to paragraph 8.3(c) of the FTP has rejected the claim of refund on the ground that deficiencies contained in the application, were not cured. 4.7 Strangely though, the officer concerned in the impugned order has made no reference to the observations of this court, made in paragraph 16 and 17 of the order dated 11.02.2015, passed in WP(C) 1331/2015. 5. Mr. Narula, who appears for the respondents, says that an appeal is maintainable against the impugned order. Mr. Narula also relies upon the impugned order to contend that even on meri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcular dated 15.03.2013, according to me, the said circular does not need to be struck down. The circular is based on an administrative interpretation of the FTP. The FTP, according to me, is clear, that where exemption has been availed of, no refund is payable to such an applicant. 17. As indicated above, the common case of parties before me, is that, exemption was not availed of by the petitioner, instead the petitioner ended paying TED. Therefore, the petitioner had two options: First, to seek refund of the Excise Duty from the Excise Department. Second to seek refund from the respondent herein. The petitioner has chosen the latter. The FTP, as it then existed, did not de-bar the petitioner from seeking a refund from one of the two de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd to the approach adopted in the matter, this order will be placed before the superior officer of the officer concerned so that he is counselled appropriately. 7.2 At this stage, the petitioner seeks costs of the proceedings. In my opinion, in this particular case, the petitioners are entitled to costs, in view of the manner in which the respondents have acted in the matter, which has resulted in the petitioners having to approach the court for the second time. The respondents will also pay costs of ₹ 10,000/- to the petitioner. The costs will be paid within the same time frame. 8. With the aforesaid observations in place, the captioned petition and the pending application are disposed of. 9. Dasti. - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
