9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 912X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 17.09.2007 and the amending notification nowhere specified that cash refund should not be considered, in the eventuality, when the same was paid by using the duty credit scrips. Since the legislative intent is to extend the benefit of exemption upon fulfillment of certain conditions, denial of such benefit in absence of any express provisions in the statute defeats the very purpose of such legislation. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of ALLEN DIESELS INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. [ 2016 (2) TMI 247 - DELHI HIGH COURT] , in an identical case, has held that upon fulfillment of the requirements contained in the notification, the benefit of refund should be available to the claimant. It has further been held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion No. 93/2008-CUS., dated 01.08.2008, has provided exemption from payment of SAD amount on the imported goods, when those are subsequently sold in India. The exemption benefit provided under the said notifications is subject to fulfillment of the conditions itemized therein. During the disputed period, the appellant had filed the Bills of Entry and paid the SAD amount of ₹ 67,56,488/-. The said amount was paid partly in cash and partly by utilizing the duty credit scrips. In terms of the above referred notifications, the appellants had filed the refund application before the jurisdictional authorities, claiming refund of SAD amount of Rs,.67,56,488/-. The refund sanctioning authority vide order dated 11.04.2017 had sanctioned the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he judicial forum: (i) Allen Diesels India Private Limited Vs. Union of India [2016 (334) ELT 624 (Del.)] (ii) Essel Mining Industries Ltd. [2012 (5) TMI 328 BOMBAY HIGH COURT] (iii) Arihant Tiles Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C. Mundra [2018 (8) TMI 634 CESTAT Ahmedabad (iv) Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Ahmedabad Vs. Proflex Systems [2017 (10) TMI 1202 CESTAT Ahmedabad (v) Molex India Pvt. Ltd. C.C-Bangalore-Cus. [2018 (6) TMI 1374 CESTAT Bangalore (vi) M/s. Enterprises International Ltd. Vs. The AC, Customs (Exports), The Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) [2016 (10) TMI 24 Madras High Court] (vii) M/s. Sivagurunathan Textiles Ltd. Vs. CCE, Cehnnai-II [2014 (10) TMI 125 CESTAT Chennai] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to the appellant, even though the SAD amount was paid by using the duty credit scrips. We find that the issue arising out of the present dispute is no more res integara in view of the above judgments relied upon by the appellants. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Allen Diesels India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), in an identical case, has held that upon fulfillment of the requirements contained in the notification, the benefit of refund should be available to the claimant. It has further been held that the circulars issued by CBEC, imposing additional restrictions for the availment of the benefit of the duty exemption cannot be acted upon inasmuch as an amendment to the notification can only be issued in exercise of the powers contained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SAD under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs, they are ultra vires of the Act and cannot be legally sustained. Consequently, it is declared that the Circular Nos. 6/2008, 10/2012 and 18/2013 issued by the CBEC, insofar as they seek to deny importers and exporters the refund of the SAD paid by using DEPB scrips, are invalid. 21. The rejection of the Petitioner's refund applications by the orders dated 16th May 2014 and 20th May 2014, on the above grounds, is held to be bad in law and the said orders are hereby set aside. Since the Petitioner has fulfilled the conditions set out in Notification No. 102/2007-Customs for availing of the refund, the Department is directed to issue orders granting refund to the Petitioner, as prayed for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
