9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndareswaran, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the Writ Petitions are taken up for disposal. 2. The petitioner-Company has filed W.P.Nos.23507 and 23508 of 2014 challenging the rejection of their refund claims and W.P.No.23509 of 2014, has been filed, questioning the Policy Circular No. 16 dated 15.03.2013. 3. The issue which falls for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for refund of the Terminal Excise Duty. The fourth respondent namely the Commissioner of Central Excise, has taken a stand that the petitioner is not entitled for refund. However, the claim for refund has been rejected by the third respondent by an order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocess the refund claim before the third respondent. 5. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent/Commissioner of Central Excise, pointed out that the Policy Circular has been upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in the case of SADOKZ PVT LTD., v. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS [2016-TIOL-1753-HC-MUM-CUS]. At this stage, it would be relevant to point out that some what an identical issue was considered by this Court in the case of RAJA CROWNS AND CANS PVT. LTD., v. UNION OF INDIA ANDORS [2015 (310) E.L.T.40(Mad.)]. In the said Writ Petition, the prayer sought for was to quash the decision taken by the Policy Interpretation Committee of the DGFT dated 04.12.2012. In the said meeting, the ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed exports. The benefits for deemed exports include inter alia exemption from TED where supplies are made against ICD (a term which means International Competitive Bidding ). In the present case, concededly, the petitioner did not make any supplies against the ICD. Therefore, it would be covered by latter part of para 8.3(c), i.e. Cases where refund of TED will be given. This intention is given effect by the second entry in column (a) of para 8.4 read with corresponding benefits spelt-out in column (c) which states that entitlement in terms of para 8.3 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 under para 8.5. 9. The authorities in this c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime operates in its own terms and is independent of the rights and liabilities of the petitioner and the respondents under the import-export policies framed under the 1992 Act. This Court notices that its reasoning is fortified by the decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in JDGFT V. IFGL Refractories Limited, 2002 (143) ELT 294 (Cal). There, the Court ruled that once the supply of goods falls within the category of deemed export, the unit would be entitled to refund of TED. 10.In view of the above discussion, the impugned orders are hereby quashed. The respondents are hereby directed to process and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the 2009 policy in respect of the petitioner's refund claims made through ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
