9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CENVAT regime under the Central Excise Act or the other statutory schemes framed under it is available. In this Court’s opinion, that regime 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. The third respondent is directed to process the refund claim in accordance with 2009 Policy by taking into consideration the petitioner's refund application and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months. - W.P.Nos.32596 to 32598 of 2017 and W.M.P.Nos.35922 to 35927 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 14-12-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. J. Prasanna Kumar F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. The Court after taking into consideration the decision of this Court in the case of Raja Crowns and Cans Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 2015 (317) E.L.T. 40 (Mad), the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Sadokz Pvt. Ltd., vs. The Union of India and others reported in 2016-TIOL-1753-HC-MUM-CUS and the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Kondoi Metal Powers Mft. Co. Pvt. Ltd., vs. Union of India reported in 2014 (302) E.L.T. 209 (Del), allowed the writ petitions and directed the authority to consider the refund claim. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: 5.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the fourth resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ursuant to the resolution dated 04.12.2012 which is impugned in this writ petition. Therefore, the cause of action in the case before the Delhi High Court was the impugned resolution. Therefore, the decision rendered by the Delhi High Court binds the respondents and the Delhi High Court quoted with the approval in the decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in JDGFT V. IFGL Refractories Limited (cited supra). At this stage, it would be beneficial to refer to the operative portion of the Judgment: 8.It would thus be seen that supplies made to EOUs in terms of para 8.2(b) are entitled to be regarded as deemed exports. The benefits for deemed exports include inter alia exemption from TED where supplies are made against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, was defined in terms of the existing policy, i.e. Refund in terms of paras 8.2, 8.3, 8.4 and 8.5 of the 2009 Policy as discussed above. That a subsequent amendment was made to the existing regime which in effect liberalized the position further and exempted payment of TED altogether cannot surely be a reason for denying the scheme for refund of payment already made. The Court also is unable to see the reason why the respondents were of the view that refund claim or benefit under the CENVAT regime under the Central Excise Act or the other statutory schemes framed under it is available. In this Court's opinion, that regime operates in its own terms and is independent of the rights and liabilities of the petitioner and the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 6.As noticed above, the decision of the Delhi High Court would squarely cover the case on hand, as the Court took into consideration of the fact that subsequent amendment was made to the existing regime which in effect liberalised the position further and exempted payment of TED altogether cannot surely be a reason for denying the scheme for refund of payment already made. 7.In the light of the above - (i) W.P.Nos.23507 23508 of 2014 are allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the third respondent is directed to process the refund claim in accordance with 2009 Policy, by taking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
