TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w that the impugned orders, namely, the order in appeal passed by the second respondent dated 5-6-2015 as well as the order of the Original authority dated 25-5-2010 passed by the fourth respondent have been passed by total non-application of mind to the documents produced by the petitioner. The impugned orders passed by the second respondent dated 5-6-2015 as well the order dated 25-5-2010 passed by the fourth respondent will have to be necessarily quashed and the matter remanded back to the original authority, namely, the fourth respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law - Petition allowed by way of remand. - W.P. No. 27830 of 2015 and M.P. No. 1 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 12-3-2021 - Abdul Quddhose, J. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies effected by the petitioner are for expansion or upgradation of refinery projects and hence, the petitioner is not exempted from payment of customs duty. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the second respondent and the fourth respondent, this Writ Petition has been filed. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents reiterating the contents of the order dated 25-5-2010 passed by the fourth respondent as well as the order dated 5-6-2015 passed in the Order-in-Appeal by the second respondent by stating that the supplies effected by the petitioner have been made only for expansion or upgradation of M/s. Reliance Petroleum Limited and therefore, according to them, the said supplies are not for new refineries, for which alone, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have observed that the exemption benefits cannot be given with the retrospective date, since the letter of intent was issued in the year 1992. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to the letter of intent issued in favour of the petitioner in the year 1992, which will clearly establish that the supplies to be effected by the petitioner are only for a new refinery project. No contra evidence has been placed either before the authorities below or before this Court by the respondents to disprove the contention of the petitioner that the supplies were effected only for a new refinery project, that was established only during the 9th plan period (i.e.) between 1997-2002. The Learned Counsel for the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f India. 7. Per contra, Mr. Venkataswamy Babu, Learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the letter of intent was issued to the petitioner in the year 1992 during the 9th plan period, but whereas the supplies were effected by the petitioner during the 9th plan period. He would rely upon paragraph 10.11 of the Hand Book of Procedures, 1997-2002 amended upto 1998 for grant of licence. According to him, as per the said procedure, which is meant for the 9th plan, cannot be extended to a project of the 8th plan. He then drew the attention of this Court to Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and would submit that in view of the letters of the Department of Economic Affairs dated 17-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2004 Letter sent to the 1st respondent by the RIL (Reliance Industries Ltd., for commencing the project) 10. None of the aforementioned documents have been considered either by the fourth respondent or by the second respondent, while passing their respective orders, which are the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition. The said documents will reveal that the petitioner has supplied only to a new refinery project of M/s. Reliance Petroleum Limited for the 9th plan. In the impugned order, as observed earlier, excepting for relying upon the clarification issued by the Department of Economic Affairs, Government of India, the documents placed before this Court by the petitioner have not been consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
