TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... already made by the petitioner. Delhi High Court in Kandoi Metal Powders Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd’s case [2014 (2) TMI 773 - DELHI HIGH COURT], has held that once the supply of goods fall within the category of deemed export, the unit would be entitled to refund of TED. Refund allowed - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - Writ Petition No. 64539 of 2016 (T-TAR) - - - Dated:- 20-3-2018 - S. Sujatha, J. Shri G. Shivadass, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Ms. Vaishali Shah, S/Shri Chinmay J. Mirji, C.V. Prahalada Rao for Y. Hari Prasad, Advocates, for the Respondent. ORDER Petitioner has challenged the communication dated 31-3-2016 issued by the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi at Annexure- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to reject the refund application on the ground that refund of TED has to be filed before the Regional authority. Respondent No. 5 passed the original order rejecting the refund application of the petitioner as proposed, against which an appeal was preferred by the petitioner. In the meanwhile respondent No. 3 issued letter dated 31-3-2016 affirming that refund of TED is not available in cases where exemption is available ab initio. Respondent No. 3 has issued communication reaffirming the rejection of claim for refund of TED by Regional Authorities. Hence this writ petition. 3. Learned Counsel Sri. G. Shivadass appearing for the petitioner submitted that during the period of impugned supplies (June, 2009 to October, 2009) paras 8.3 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01 (132) E.L.T. 545 (Cal.) 7. CCE, Ahmedabad v. Reliance Industries Ltd. reported in 2015 (321) E.L.T. 392 (S.C.). 4. Learned Counsel Ms. Vaishali Shah, appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 would submit in terms of interpretation of policy of FTP 2009-2014, clause 2.3 Chapter II contemplates, if any question or doubt arises in respect of interpretation of any provision contained in FTP, or classification of any item in ITC (HS) or HBP-v1 or HBP-v2, or Schedule or DEPB Rates (including content, scope or issue of an authorization thereunder) said question or doubt shall be referred to DGFT whose decision thereon shall be final and binding. DGFT Circular dated 15-3-2013 clarifies that in respect of supplies, no refund of TED should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In respect of such supplies supplier shall be entitled to the benefits listed in paragraphs 8.3(a), (b) and (c) of the Policy, whichever is applicable. Relevant sub-Benefit available as given in para 8.3 and para of 8.2 whichever is applicable. Relevant sub-para of 8.2 Benefit available as given in para 8.3, whichever is applicable (a) (b) (c) (a) Yes (for intermediate supplies) Yes (against ARO or Back to Back letter of credit) Yes (against ARO or Back to Back letter of credit) (b) Yes Yes Yes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... benefit of refund in view of the clarification given by the Policy Interpretation Committee and the Circular No. 16, dated 15-3-2013. It is not in dispute that the petitioner supplied goods to the EOU at the relevant time, its entitlement would be as defined in terms of the then existing policy i.e. refund in terms of [Para] 8.2 to 8.5 of the policy. Any subsequent amendment made to the existing policy liberalizing the Scheme and exempting payment of TED cannot be a reason to deny the refund of payment already made by the petitioner. This reason is fortified by the Division Bench s judgment of the Calcutta High Court in IFGL Refractors Ltd. s case (supra) and Division Bench s judgment of Delhi High Court in Kandoi Metal Powders Mfg. Co. Pvt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
