9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rces 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 adverse factor for denying the benefit of Duty Drawback. When an adverse decision is taken of this nature denying the right of the petitioners to claim Duty Drawback, it is incumbent upon the 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. The matter is remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration - petition allowed by way of remand. - W.P. Nos. 4330-4337 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 13-7-2018 - V. Parthiban, J. Shri T. Mohan, SC for M/s. G. Mani Nidhin Jaya Chander, for the Petitioner. Shri G. Karthikeyan, Asstt. Solicitor General, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order (Common)]. - Since common grounds and issues have been raised in all these writ petitions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cording to the petitioners, the wind energy 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 approval. However, it appears that in the meeting held in March, 2008, the first respondent refused to approve the claim for Duty Drawback for the petitioners only on the ground that the WEGs are located outside the EOUs. The decision of the first respondent was communicated by the third respondent which is also impugned in the writ petitions. 5. Aggrieved by the decision of the first respondent in not gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be entertained. The Learned Counsel would submit that the Wind Mills need to be located within the premises of the EOUs is a preposterous stand on the part of the first respondent since the Wind Mills cannot be located in all places regardless of the fact whether there were available wind resources during all seasons. According to the Learned Counsel, once the generation of energy by the Wind Mill and its consumption by the petitioners have become integral part of EOUs, the physical location of Wind Mills does not really the matter for the purpose of claim by the petitioner for Duty Drawback. 8. On the other hand, Shri G. Karthikeyan, Learned Asstt. Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioners were not entitled to the claim towards Duty Drawback in view of the location of Wind Mills outside the territorial jurisdiction of EOUs and no specific letter of permission 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 adverse factor for denying the benefit of Duty Drawback. While holding so, this Court is not inclined to go any further on the controversies raised in the writ petitions since this Court is of the prima facie view that the orders/communications impugned in the writ petitions appeared to have been passed and issued without appreciating the various factors and legal position in proper perspective. 12. In fact, when the Grievance Redressal Committee referred the matter back to the first respondent for reconsideration, it is imperative on the part of the first respondent to take into consideration the issues and the concerns raised by the petitioners in the light of the recommendation of the Grievance Redressal Committee. However, it appears that the first respondent without relooking into the matter, has mechanically rejected the claim of the petitioner by sticking to i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
