9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vind Cotspin [ 2023 (2) TMI 825 - SUPREME COURT] , the said order is liable to be set aside - It was held in the case that the benefit of deemed exports was liable to be considered and the distinction between deemed exports and physical exports has been done away for the relevant period. The impugned order is set aside holding that the petitioner is not eligible for DTA sale in respect of deemed exports, on the basis of clarification dated 17.11.2008 received from respondent no. 2 which is ultimately based on the Office Memorandum dated 07.10.2008 and taking into consideration the application format for DTA Sale given at Annexure-A to Appendix 14-I-H of Handbook of Procedures, Volume-I and, for issuance of writ in the nature of manda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r alleging that the clearance made with regard to DTA Sale was beyond the limit prescribed under the exemption and that the petitioner would be liable to pay excise duty in that regard. Reply to the said show cause notice was submitted on 01.11.2007 stating therein that since the sale was covered under deemed exports there was no question of paying any extra excise duty. The said clarification was not accepted and hence the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order dated 31.12.2007. During pendency of the appeal, the Development Commissioner extended DTA Sale entitlement of deemed exports for the period from October-2005 to December-2005. However, since this permission was withdrawn without hearing the petitioner the order d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon ble Supreme Court has held that while applying for DTA Sale entitlement there was no distinction made between physical exports and deemed exports. The term FOB Value of Exports had been used in the application form as a result of which deemed exports were considered at par with physical exports. It is thus submitted that in view of aforesaid, the petitioner would be entitled for the relief as prayed for and the order dated 09.12.2011 was liable to be set aside. 5. Shri N.S. Deshpande, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India fairly submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Arvind Cotspin (supra) the benefit of deemed exports was liable to be considered and the distinction between deemed exports ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts have contended that this requirement was only for the purpose of calculation of NFEP achievement, it appears that there was no explicit distinction between deemed exports and physical exports during the application process. 7. The Development Commissioner in the impugned order has refused to grant any relief in the matter of differential duty on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible for DTA Sale with regard to deemed exports . We find that in view of what has been held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Arvind Cotspin (supra), the said order is liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the following order is passed :- (I) The writ petition is allowed in terms of Prayer Clauses (iii) and (iv) of the writ petition which r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
