TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ible if the goods supplied are exempted goods and in this regard DGFT has initiated proceedings against the respondent and has imposed penalty of ₹ 11 crores for wrongly claiming the refund availment of excise duty. In our view the matter of claiming terminal excise duty refund from DGFT in respect of the goods supplied by the respondent is a matter between them and the DGFT and on this ground it would not be correct to deny the benefit of Notification No. 56/02-CE to the Respondent for which the necessary condition stand satisfied by them. - Since, the respondent had availed the exemption under Notification No. 56/02-CE in respect of the goods supplied by them to M/s Reliance Telecom Infrastructure Limited against invalidated EPCG li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m Infrastructure Limited against invalidated EPCG licences as deemed export, they also applied to the DGFT for refund of terminal excise duty (TED) in terms of the provisions of para 8.2 of the Foreign Trade Policy. For the period from August 2007 to January 2008 they received the TED refund of about ₹ 7 crores. There is no dispute that as per the policy of the DGFT, TED refund would not be admissible if the goods supplied by a domestic supplier as deemed export are exempted goods and that in this case the DGFT have initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty and the total penalty of ₹ 11 crores has been imposed. 1.1 The Department, however, also initiated proceedings for denial of the benefit of exemption Notification No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... treating those supplies an deemed export have claimed refund of the excise duty from the DGFT, they cannot claim exemption of the same excise duty under Notification No. 56/02-CE, that permitting the exemption under Notification No. 56/02-CE and also claim by them of the Central Excise duty refund from the DGFT by treating their supplies to M/s Reliance Telecom Infrastructure Limited against invalidated EPCG licence as deemed export amounts to double benefit and the Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) have, therefore, wrongly upheld the permitting of exemption under Notification No. 56/02-CE and hence, the impugned orders are not correct. 4. Shri R.K. Hasija, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the respondent, pleaded that the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unit is located in the area specified in this notification and the goods are also covered for exemption under this notification. The dispute in respect of the goods supplied to M/s Reliance Telecom Infrastructure Limited against invalidated EPCG licence. The customer. M/s Reliance Telecom Infrastructure Limited had not availed Cenvat credit in terms of Rule 12 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and in this regard had given a certificate that they will not claim refund of TED from DGFT. Based on this certificate, the respondent claimed refund of the excise duty from. DGFT. It is seen that as per the policy of DGFT, refund of terminal excise duty is not admissible if the goods supplied are exempted goods and in this regard DGFT has initiated p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
