Karnataka High Court
M/S Saikala Power Private Limited vs Additional Director General Of Foreign ... on 21 April, 2023
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
WRIT APPEAL NO 41 OF 2016 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S SAIKALA POWER PRIVATE LIMITED
SHED NO. 20/B, 2ND PHASE
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA
BANGALORE - 560 058.
(REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY MUKESH KUMAR).
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAVI RAGHAVAN FOR SMT.NEETHU JAMES - ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL
OF FOREIGN TRADE
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF
FOREIGN TRADE UDYOG BHAWAN,
NEW DELHI - 110 002.
2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL
OF FOREGIN TRADE
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF
FOREIGN TRADE, UDYOG BHAWAN,
NEW DELHI - 110 002.
2
3. REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR GENERAL
OF FOREIGN TRADE
KENDRIYASADAN, 6TH FLOOR,
C & E WING, 17TH MAIN ROAD,
KORAMANGALA 2ND BLOCK,
BANGALORE - 560 034.
4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
DEEC, CUSTOM HOUSE, 60,
RAJAJISALAI, CHENNAI - 600 001.
5. THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNION BANK OF INDIA,
SSI FINANCE BRANCH, NO. 43/1,
1ST FLOOR, TUMKUR ROAD,
YESHWANTPUR INDUSTRIAL SUBURB,
BANGALORE - 560 022.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MADHUKAR DESHPANDE - ASG FOR R-1 TO R-3;
SRI. JEEVAN J NEERALGI - ADVOCATE FOR R-4; R-5 SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
IN THE WRIT PETITION 10561 OF 2013 DATED 30/10/2015.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 29.03.2023 COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY UMESH M ADIGA
.J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGEMENT
This Writ Appeal is directed against order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.10561 of 2013 (GM- RES) dated 30.10.2015.
3
2. The parties herein are referred to as per their ranking in the Writ Petition.
3. Brief facts of case of petitioner were that Appellant/Petitioner was an EPC Contractor engaged in the commissioning of Hydel Power Plants. The Petitioner Company entered into a contract with SLS Power Corporation Limited, being the Project Authority to carry out engineering, procurement, assembly, erection, storage, handling, testing and commissioning and carrying out performance testing and commercial operation of 24 Mega Watt Hydro Electric Power Generation Plant, including Electro Mechanical and Hydro Mechanical Equipments for Dummugudem Mini Hydel Scheme with Six units of 4000 KW rated capacity each, on the left flank of the branch anicut of the Godavari river at Dummagudem Village, Bhadrachalam Taluk, Khammam District, Andhra Pradesh.
4. It was further case of petitioner that petitioner company had obtained the said contract through international competitive bidding (ICB) procedure and the said contract was entered into between the petitioner as well as the SLS company dated 02.07.2008.
4
5. Petitioner procured various equipments required for execution of the contract. The equipments so procured comprised of imported equipments, indigenous equipments and equipments fabricated indigenously. The petitioner procured electro-mechanical equipments and also electrical equipments. Several equipments required for execution of EPC contract were to be imported and the supply of goods to Hydro power projects, is deemed export within the meaning of Para 8.2 (g) of the Foreign Trade Policy (hereinafter referred as FTP for sake of brevity). The Petitioner applied to the Directorate of Foreign Trade (hereinafter referred as DFT for sake of brevity) for issuance of Advance Authorization in terms of Para 4.1.3 of the Foreign Trade Policy for duty free import of goods for supply to the Project Authority. Accordingly, Petitioner was granted advance Authorization No.0710064907 dated 21.05.2009 by joint DGFT, Bengaluru as a main contractor of the Hydel Power Project. In terms of the Advance Authorization, the Appellant was entitled to import goods worth CIF value of Rs. 68,27,31,904/- within a period of 24 months from the date of the advance Authorization, on or before 20.05.2011. The shipment date was extended by a further period of six months till 20.11.2011.
5
6. The Appellant was to full-fill export obligation of Rs.72,70,00,000/- by way of supplies to the Project Authority within a period of 36 months i.e., till 20.05.2012. The particulars of the goods to be imported under Advance Authorization and details of the goods to be supplied for fulfilling the export obligation were contained in the Advance Authorization issued by DGFT, to the Petitioner.
7. The Petitioner was also required to execute Bank Guarantee/Letter of Undertaking with the customs authority, as per the procedure prescribed before effecting imports.
8. The Petitioner subsequently obtained several equipments indigenously and invalidation letters were obtained from the Joint Director General, Foreign Trade in respect of such domestic procurement. The petitioner imported goods without payment of duty under the Advance Authorization by availing the benefit of exemption from payment of basic customs duty and additional customs duty in terms of Notification No.91/2004-CUS dated 10.09.2004.
9. Petitioner sought for exemption from payment of duty under Advance Authorization Scheme by executing a bond dated 26.09.2009 for an amount of Rs.68,95,59,223/-. 6 Petitioner, as directed by the Customs Officers, furnished a Bank Guarantee dated 26.09.2009 for an amount of Rs.2,25,00,000/- and it was valid till 25.09.2011. Petitioner renewed the said Bank guarantee twice, i.e., once from 26.09.2011 to 25.03.2012 and thereafter from 26.03.2012 to 25.09.2012.
10. Petitioner as per terms of contract, supplied the imported goods to the project and had undertaken assembly, erection, commissioning and installation of the goods so supplied. Petitioner had fulfilled the export obligation by undertaking erection, installation and commissioning of final goods supplied to the Power Projects, which amounts to deemed exports under Para 8.2 (g) of the FTP. The export obligation was fulfilled by the petitioner by August 2011, within the stipulated export period expiring on 20.05.2012.
11. Petitioner had filed an application dated 07.09.2011 with JDGFT, Bengaluru for redemption of advance license. The Petitioner enclosed along with application, the particulars relating to fulfilment of export obligation and the export bill and requested for issuance of Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC). Thereafter, the petitioner had filed revised application dated 21.09.2011 for redemption of the Advance License as the Original Application dated 07.09.2011 was filed without 7 reference to the invalidation letters. The Petitioner requested the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade for issuance of Export Obligation Discharge Certificate.
12. The Petitioner vide Letter No.SKPPL/2011-2012/068 dated 02.12.2011 submitted that the contract with M/s.SLS Power Corporation was secured through the ICB route and the petitioner has completed the supplies to the Power Project and filed an application for redemption of the advance authorization. Thereafter, petitioner had once again written a letter to the Authority dated 19.12.2011 and requested for issuance of the EODC at the earliest.
13. The Petitioner had also submitted required materials to the Joint Director General, Foreign Trade for obtaining EODC.
14. The Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade by order dated 28.08.2012 rejected the claim of petitioner.
15. The petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 15(1)(b) of Foreign Regulation and Development Act, 1992 before Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi in Appeal No.40040 of 2012 praying to set aside the orders passed by the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi, dated 28.08.2012. The Additional Director General of 8 Foreign Trade had heard the said appeal and by order dated 18.01.2013 rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner.
Petitioner, being aggrieved by the said orders passed by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade filed Writ Petition No.10561 of 2013 (GM-RES) praying for following relief:-
a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the
impugned order in Appeal No.01/92/180/
161/AM13/PC6/227 dated 18.01.2013 passed by Respondent No.1 and letter FN07/24/040/00070/AM10 dated 11.02.2013 issued by Respondent No.3.
b. Issue of a Writ of Mandamus to Respondent No.3 directing to issue Export Obligation Discharge Certificate in favour of Petitioner.
c. Issue a Writ of mandamus to Respondent No.4 directing to withdraw a letter dated 15.03.2013 (Annexure-AF) till the disposal of the Writ Petition.
Respondents have filed objections to the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge, hearing both the parties, by impugned order dated 30.10.2015 dismissed the Writ Petition and confirmed the order passed by Additional Director General 9 of Foreign Trade dated18.01.2013. The said order is challenged in the present Writ Appeal.
16. We have heard the arguments of the learned Advocate for the appellant/petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
17. Learned Advocate for the appellant has vehemently contented that in the FTP Regulations the required words are defined such as 'goods', 'plant', 'manufactured goods' etc in para No.8 and 9. They were not properly interpreted. Learned Single Judge, therefore came to wrong conclusion. He has further submitted that as per Point No.8.2, the Categories of Supply of Goods by main or sub-contractors shall be regarded as deemed exports under Foreign Trade Policy, provided, goods are manufactured in India. According to Point No.8.2 (g) of FTP, supply of goods to power projects and refineries, which are not covered under Point No.8.2(f) are considered as deemed export. Point No.8.3 deals with benefits for deemed export. He has further submitted that Chapter 9.12 defines term Capital Goods, so also, 9.36 defines 'manufacture'.
18. Petitioner, after obtaining the materials by imports has assembled it and followed all the procedures, thereafter it 10 was installed in the project site and hence, it amounts to manufacture: that was not considered by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, so also, the learned Single Judge. He has further submitted that supplies undertaken to power project in terms of the advance license, validly granted are eligible for benefit of deemed exports and the petitioners therefore, entitled to EODC.
19. The learned Advocate for appellant has further submitted that, the main disputed point is pertaining to "goods manufactured in India." As submitted earlier, according to Para No. 9.36 of Foreign Trade Policy the term 'manufacture' has been defined. According to it 'manufacture' means make, produce, fabricate, assemble, process or bring into existence by hand or by machine a new product having distinctive name, character or use. The said definition is very wide and covers within its ambit activities, which do not amount to manufacture under other laws. On the contrary, the activities undertaken by the petitioner in terms of contract dated 02.07.2008 includes design, engineering, assembly of various parts, fabrication, reconditioning of machines, testing of machines, calibration of machines, erection and installation of assembled machines including fabrication of foundation and necessary civil work, 11 commissioning of the installed plant and testing of the commissioned plant. The supply of Hydro Power plant is a complex process, which involves electro mechanical works and hydro mechanical works. The petitioner company had primarily used imported items for undertaking electro mechanical works. Therefore, all the process involved in this case for completion of the contract is nothing but "manufacture process,"
which comes in the definition of Chapter 9. The learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the said fact and came to wrong conclusion.
20. The learned counsel for appellant has further contented that the appellate authority as well as the learned Single Judge has wrongly accepted Policy Circular No. 50 of 2009-14 dated 28.12.2011 and on that basis, held that petitioner was not entitled for the benefit of exemption, the said finding is erroneous. The interpretation of Policy Circular No.50 of 2009-14 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Moreover, it has no retrospective effect. Similarly, Policy Circular dated 28.12.2011 is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. The interpretation of the policy has to be done as on the date of issuance of the advance license i.e., 21.05.2009. Circular dated 28.12.2011 is issued after fulfilling 12 the export obligation and much after submission of application seeking issuance of EODC. The said Circular clarifies that the goods imported and supplied to Non-Mega Power projects are not entitled for the benefit of deemed exports whereas, supplies to the Non-Mega Power Projects were considered as deemed export, while granting advance authorization. Therefore, the Circular dated 28.12.2011 is oppressive and shall apply to advance authorization issued after the date of Circulars only and it has no application to the case in hand. This fact was not properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. With these reasons, learned Advocate for the appellant prayed to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition and prayed to allow the appeal and grant the relief as prayed in the Writ Petition.
21. The learned Advocate for respondent has vehemently contended that while considering the Writ Appeal, the Court has to consider as to whether the impugned order is perverse and arbitrary, then only, this Court can interfere in the said order. He has further submitted that clarification of demeed export benefits dated 28.12.2011 is not Circular, on the contrary, it is only a clarification to the existing Rules. Therefore, the clarification is applicable from the date of Rules and not from the date of the said clarification. The said 13 clarification amounts to law since it was approved by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry and Textiles; And it was passed and clarified, in terms of the Foreign Trade Policy. He has further stated that in Annexure-AC, i.e., letter of Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade Policy dated 28.08.2012, it was clarified that petitioner had not manufactured any goods in India, on the contrary, he secured the imported goods and supplied directly to the project site. Therefore, it does not fall under the Category of Deemed Exports. Petitioner had challenged the same in Appeal No.40040 of 2012 before the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi as per Annexure-AD. The said Authority passed an order dated 18.01.2013 and dismissed the appeal. Petitioner herein had urged the very same points before the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade. While considering the above said appeal, the concerned Additional Director General of Foreign Trade has appreciated the submission of appellant along with materials placed before him, thereafter referring to the Rules, Clarifications, Notifications, etc., rightly rejected the said appeal vide order dated 18.01.2013. Petitioner being dis-satisfied by the said order, challenged it before the learned Single Bench of this Court in W.P.10561 of 2013. The learned Single Judge, by 14 impugned order dated 30.10.2015 considered all the submission of the appellant herein and rejected the said contention on the ground that supply of goods and materials by the petitioner company do not fall under the category of deemed export as stated in Regulation No.8.2 and they were not goods manufactured in India, on the contrary, petitioner had imported the goods and supplied it to the concerned Company as per the contract. Therefore, petitioner is not justified in obtaining EODC and is not entitled for the same.
22. The learned Advoate for respondent submitted that the findings of the learned Single Judge is in accordance with the Rules, Regulations and Clarifications of Foreign Trade Policy. The Writ Petition was dismissed by assigning sound reasons and it does not call for any interference in the Writ Appeal. The grounds of appeal are not sustainable. The learned Advocate for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment and prays to dismiss the Writ Appeal.
23. Let us consider the submission of both the side. The claim of the petitioner before the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade, Additional Director General of Foreign Trade as well as before the Writ Court was rejected on the main ground that alleged import, assembling, processing and installing to 15 project site of the petitioner do not fall under category of deemed export and said process do not amount to "manufactured in India" and it is just transfer of imported goods to the project site as per the contract. Therefore, the crucial question in this case is pertaining to whether importing of goods by the petitioner from foreign companies and supplying it to Hydel Power Project after assembling the same would amount to goods manufactured in India or not? and whether said process would come under the definition of Point No.8.2 of FTP?
In Annexure-AC produced by the petitioner, being the letter of Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade bearing No.01/92/180/191/AM-11/PC6/134 dated 28.08.2012 reads as under: (it is reproduced) To, Shri D.Ramesh Babu, Director, M/s.Saikala Power (p) Ltd., Shed No.20/B, 2nd Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore - 560 058.
Subject : Regarding issue of Export Obligation Discharge Certificate in respect of Advance Authorization No.0710064907 dated 21.05.2009. 16
Sir, Please refer to your letter No.SKPPL/2012- 12/016 dated 11.6.2012 on the subject mentioned above.
2. The advance license was issued on 21.05.2009 and on that date, prevalent Policy allows benefits under Para 8.3 (a) of FTP. However, vide P.C.No.50 dated 28.12.2011, it has been clarified that only goods which have been manufactured in India and supplied to the Project Authority shall be eligible for deemed exports benefits. If goods are imported and supplied as such, then such supplies do not amount to deemed exports. In the instant case, goods were imported and supplied directly at project site do not fall under the category of deemed exports. You are informed that this is not a change in policy but only clarification on existing policy. Para 2.3 of FTP states that the decision of DGFT shall be final and binding on all matters relating to interpretation of Policy, of provisions in HBP v!, HBP v2 or classification of any item for import/export policy in the ITC (HS). PIC meetings are chaired by DG and its minutes are approved by DG. Thus decision of PIC/DG is final and binding.
This is issued with the Approval of competent Authority.
Sd/-
(Krishna Kumar) Dy.Director General of Foreign Trade Tel.No.23061562 ext. 380 Email: [email protected] (emphasised is ours) The concerned Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade after consideration and going through the materials placed 17 before it, has held that petitioner had imported the said goods and supplied directly at project site without any process. Therefore, the concerned authority held that it does not amount to "manufactured in India" and refused to give the benefit of deemed export. It is also stated in the said letter that the decision of PIC is only a clarification of existing policy and it does not amount to change in policy and the opinion of PIC/DG is final and binding on all the parties. Therefore, the contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant that the clarification dated 28.12.2011 cannot be made applicable retrospectively and do not apply to the case of petitioner, does not hold any water.
24. The learned Advocate for respondents has placed on record the Policy Circular No.50/2009-2014 (RE 2010) dated 28.12.2011, which reads as under: (letter is reproduced) To:
All Regional Authorites (RAs);
CBEC & All commissioners of Customs; Exporting Community.
Subject: Clarification on Deemed Export benefits when imported capital goods are directly supplied as such to Project Authority - regarding.
1. Policy Interpretation Committee in its meeting held on 15.03.2011 had inter-alia clarified as under:18
"Issue of claiming Deemed Export benefits in cases of import made by the project authority was discussed. After due deliberation, it was decided that if the Bill of entry is in the name of project authority deemed export benefits would not available (such cases will be ineligible for grant of Deemed Export benefits)."
2. Deemed exports benefits are admissible in terms of paragraph of 8.2 of FTP, if goods are manufacture in India. In the case non mega power projects, for instance, if capital goods such as boilers, turbines, generators (BTGs) are being supplied to project authorities, then deemed export benefits are admissible only if such BTGs are manufacture in India. If these are imported and supplied, as such, then such supplies do not amount to deemed exports, and hence deemed export benefits will not admissible.
3. Accordingly, in continuation to PIC clarification, as given in paragraph 1 above, it is further clarified that in case capital goods have been imported by the contractor/sub-contractor and supplied as such to project authorities, then custom duties paid on such imports cannot be refunded back as deemed export duty drawback under paragraph 8.3(b) of FTP.
4. All Regional Authorities may take note of this clarification for processing/review of deemed export claims.
5. The issues with the approval of Hon'ble Minister of Commerce, Industry & Textiles.
(L.B.Singhal) Jt.Director General of Foreign Trade Tel : 011-230620 E-mail: lb.singhal@nic 19 The above said clarification, i.e., Policy Circular clearly explains regarding Point No.8.2 and 8.3(b) of Foreign Trade Policy. By the said Circular, Joint Director General of Foreign Trade has clarified which is self explanatory. As rightly submitted by learned Advocate for respondent, it is only a clarification Circular. Therefore, it does not amount to any law or notification or policy and hence contention that it cannot be applied retrospectively, cannot be accepted. It is applicable to the existing provision of law or existing definitions of the terms under Foreign Trade Policy and hence, question of prospective or retrospective effect does not stand to scrutiny. The contention of the appellant/ petitioner that it is prospective in effect and it does not applicable to the case of the petitioner since petitioner obtained the said advance authorization from the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Bengaluru prior to the date of Circular do not hold any water and not tenable.
25. The orders passed by the Appellate Authority in Appeal bearing F.No.01/92/180/161/AM13/PC6 dated 18.01.2013. The Additional Director General of Foreign Trade in his findings at Para No.6 (d) to (f) has discussed in detail and had answered all the questions, which are raised in this appeal 20 by the appellant. In the said order, it was held by appellat authority that:
"6(d) As mentioned above, words used under Para 8.2(g) is supply of goods. That is manufacturing should take place in India before the goods are supplied to the Project. In this case, goods supplied by Appellant have not been manufactured in India. Hence, these supplies do not amount do deemed export at all.
(e) Paragraph 8.4.4(iv) of FTP 2009-14, relating to non-mega power project, provided that supply of capital goods to power project, in terms of paragraph 8.2(g), shall be entitled for deemed exports benefits. Hence, deemed export benefit for non-mega power project was available for supply of capital goods and as clarified in paragraph 6.(b), (c) and (d) above, these capital goods have to be essentially manufactured in India. In this case, capital goods like turbine, generators, etc. have been imported and supplied as such to the power project. Deemed export benefits would have been available if these capital goods like turbine, generators, etc. would have been manufactured in India for such power projects and an Advance Authorization could have been taken for import or inputs required for manufacture of these capita goods. Deemed Export Policy is basically for import substitution and 21 when the Project authority is importing the same then no import substitution takes place. Import of capital goods by non-mega power project is subjected to 5% Basic Customs Duty. If imported goods are supplied as such to the project site and the 5% duty to be paid get exempted by taking Advance authorization, then it defeats the very purpose of imposition of 5% Basic Customs Duty.
(f) The Appellant's contention that Policy Circular is oppressive and should have prospective effect is not correct. Policy Circular has merely clarified that in case capital goods have been imported by the contractor/sub-contractor and supplied as such to project authorities, then custom duties paid on such imports cannot be refunded back as deemed export duty drawback under paragraph 8.3(b) of Foreign Trade Policy. It does not introduce any new condition. This Policy Circular has been issued with the approval of Director General of Foreign Trade. In fact, this Policy Circular has even approval of Minister of Commerce and Industry".
The above said findings of the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade completely answers the contention of appellants on merit and clearly discloses that in view of the non- manufacturing of the products in India, petitioner/appellant is not entitled for the benefit of exemption. Petitioner said to have 22 imported the goods and supplied to the power project, does not amount to manufacturing in India. Therefore, the Appellate Authority has not committed any illegality or irregularity in rejecting the appeal.
26. In the impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge has considered all the submissions of the appellant/petitioner and has rightly rejected the said contentions. The learned Single Judge referred the relevant provisions of FTP and properly interpreted them. It is not necessary to re-produce the said provisions in the present judgment. In Chapter No.8, at 8.2 (a) to (j) are applicable, provided, the goods are "manufactured in India," which are elaborately discussed by the learned Single Judge in Para No.13 of the impugned Judgment. Therefore, merely supply of goods to the Power Project and Refineries by itself do not come under the category of 'deemed exports', unless it was manufactured in India.
The term 'manufacture' is defined in Chapter No.9 at 9.36, which is also noted in the impugned Judgment at Para No.11, Page No.20. The definition itself is very clear; it indicates, " to produce, fabricate, assemble, process or bring into existence by hand or by machine, a new product having distinctive name, character or use" and shall include processor, such as, 23 refrigeration, re-packing, polishing, labelling, reconditioning, repair, remarking, refurbishing, testing, calibration and re- engineering. Therefore, if the imported articles were assembled, then it should form a new product having distinctive name, character or use. In this case, the fact finding officers, such as Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade as well as Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, on the basis of materials placed before them, held that whatever the capital goods imported by the petitioner were supplied the goods, as such, to the said Hydel project. Therefore, such transfer do not amount to any new product having distinctive name or character or use. Therefore, the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade, Additional Director General of Foreign Trade and the learned Single Judge rightly rejected the contention of the appellant/petitioner and it does not call for any interference.
27. The learned Single Judge had considered the contentions of the appellant regarding issue of advance authorization license in Para No.20 of the impugned judgment and rightly rejected the said contention. The appellant has undertaken before the competent authority that he would manufacture the product by importing the articles and supply it to the Hydel Power Project. However, later on, it was found that 24 the said supply of articles, as such, which were imported do not amount to process of manufacturing in India and hence, he was not eligible for exemption of custom duty. Therefore, petitioner was not entitled for 'deemed exports' benefit for supply of materials to non-mega power project and rightly rejected the said contention.
28. The learned Single Judge as well as the Appellate Authorities have properly considered the contention of the petitioner and rightly rejected the said contention. The learned Single Judge reconsidered all the facts contended by the appellant/petitioner, so also, the respondent and rightly rejected the contention of the appellant/petitioner. Repetition of definitions of certain words referred by Advocate for appellant is not necessary. They were already stated and rightly interpreted by learned Single Judge. We do not find any illegality in the said findings to interfere in the same. The appeal is devoid of merits. Hence, we pass the following:
25
ORDER The Writ Appeal is hereby dismissed.
The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.10561 of 2013 (GM-RES) dated 30.10.2015 is confirmed.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE DH