9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are private limited companies involved in manufacturing of cotton yarn. The companies have their Export Oriented Units (hereinafter referred to as 'EOUs') located at Coimbatore. The grievance of the petitioners is that Duty Drawback claim provided under Foreign Trade Policy has not been extended to the petitioners in respect of procurement of Wind Electrical Generators (in short, 'WEGs') for generation of electricity and its consumption. 3. The facts and the circumstances necessitating the filing of the writ petitions are stated hereunder : The petitioners are involved in manufacturing of cotton yarn and the companies have their Export Oriented Units, exporting the cotton yarn manufactured by them. For generation and consumption of e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is one of the cheapest sources of electrical energy. The supplier of WEGs, namely, M/s. Vestas Wind Technology India P. Limited imported vital components such as Main Gear Boxes, Generators, Nacelle base frames, Hubs, HV Cables, etc., on payment of Customs duty and used the same in the manufacture of WEGs. In addition to that the supplier used the indigenous components like blades, blade tips and towers for manufacture of the said WEG. The petitioners under the Foreign Trade Policy, have a right to claim Duty Drawback on the components imported by the Supplier, meaning seeking refund of the Customs duty paid by the supplier at the time of import of the components. The issue of Duty Drawback was placed before first respondent for their appr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titions. 6. Upon notice, Mr. G. Karthikeyan, Learned Assistant Solicitor General entered into appearance and filed a detailed common counter-affidavit in respect of all the writ petitions. 7. Mr. T. Mohan, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, at the outset, would submit that the location of WEGs outside the export oriented units (EOUs), cannot be the basis for rejection of claim towards Duty Drawback since WEGs are required to be located outside areas only where wind blows in all seasons consistently and constantly. It is admitted fact that the energy that was generated by WEGs was exclusively used by the petitioners units. Such being the case, the geographical location of Wind Mill away from the EOUs is not a m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was granted to the petitioners in support of their claim. According to the Learned Asstt. Solicitor General of India, the goods which were supplied other than one mentioned in the letter of permission and located outside the territorial jurisdiction of EOU, cannot be the subject matter for claim of Duty Drawback. In the absence of any specific mention in the letter of permission, the petitioners are not entitled to claim Duty Drawback for WEGs. He would therefore submit that the petitioners cannot now seek for grant of relief and request this Court to reject all the writ petitions. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners while concluding his arguments, would also rely on a decision reported in "2006 (197) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.) (Vikr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis of sound legal consideration and appreciation of the relevant factual materials which formed the basis for claim of the petitioners for Duty Drawback. There appears to be some force in the contentions putforth on behalf of the petitioners that the geographical location of the WEGs outside the EOUs, cannot be the reason for denying the Duty Drawback benefit to the petitioners since admittedly the location of Wind Mills is always on the basis of the constant availability of wind resources in all seasons as particularly, in this case, when the petitioners are the only consumers and beneficiaries of the energy generated by the Wind Mills it cannot be gainsaid that the location of Wind Mills outside the territorial jurisdiction can be an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority to disclose the basis of such adverse decision and why the case of the petitioners could not be accepted. In the impugned communications, the first respondent appeared to have not taken any effort to address all the issues, but appeared to have taken a decision with closed mind. 13. For the above said reasons, the letters/communications impugned in the respective writ petitions, viz., W.P. Nos. 4330, 4331, 4332, 4334, 4335 and 4337 of 2011 are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The first respondent is directed to reconsider the entire issue afresh after providing an effective opportunity to the petitioners to put forth their claim comprehensively. In this regard, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
