9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailed by instituting an action in court. 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 departments, subject to fulfilment of other conditions. Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, will examine the case of the petitioner and pass a suitable order thereafter. - W.P.(C) 1331/2015 and C.M. Nos. 2331-32/2015(Exemption) - - - Dated:- 11-2-2015 - MR. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her Advance Authorisation if such manufacturer, in turn, supplies the product(s) to an ultimate exporter. 6. The petitioner s grievance is that despite having moved several applications, no formal order has been communicated to it with regard to the applicability of its application for refund of the TED. 6.1 There are, however, on record copies of three (3) file notings based on which the petitioner s request for refund of the TED has been, evidently, rejected. These file notings are appended on petitioner s applications dated 14.11.2013, 03.03.2014/06.03.2014 and 24.12.2014. In the paperbook, these notings are found at pages 24, 46 and 47. 6.1 For the sake of convenience, the relevant notings is extracted herein below: Page 24 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Special Civil Application No.11031/2013, titled: M/s. Alstom India Ltd. v. UOI and Ors, 2014 (301) ELT 446/Guj. 9. In the writ petition, a challenge is laid to the filing noting dated 24.12.2014 and the circular dated 15.3.2013. 9.1 Apart from that, a prayer is made that a direction be issued to respondent No.3 to process the petitioner s claim for refund, made in the first application, on the subject, which is dated 14.9.2012. 10. I may only note that the circular dated 15.3.2013, basically reiterates, that wherever Deemed Exports are exempt from the TED, at the very inception, then, no refund would be granted. One of the circumstance noticed in that behalf is where supplies are made under the ICB in pursuance to para 8.3(c) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on in court. 14. Insofar as the prayer (c) is concerned [wrongly referred to as prayer clause (b)], which seeks issuance of a direction to respondent No.3 for refund of its claim, according to me, the same is also not sustainable at this juncture. As noticed above, respondent No.3 has not communicated its decision to the petitioner. The decision, which was taken on 03.03.2014/ 06.03.2014, is on the file, which does not stand communicated to the petitioner. Till rejection of the petitioner s claim for refund is formally communicated, the court cannot intercede in the matter. 15. Insofar as noting dated 24.12.2014 is concerned, which is made after, an apparent refusal to grant refund to the petitioner, seems to suggest that there is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
