Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2 13 wp 3287-21-os-----.doc manufacture of control panel switch-gear and completely knocked down parts of control panels which were exported out of India.

3. The Petitioner, during its regular business, procured inputs required to manufacture final products from the supplier in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA). At the relevant time, the DTA units were supplying goods on payment of CENVAT (Excise duty) to Petitioner, and the Petitioner used the goods in the manufacture of the final products cleared for export. The Petitioner did not claim or avail CENVAT credit or duty paid by the DTA units under the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The DTA units also did not claim the benefit of TED refund, and the said DTA units had issued its disclaimer certificate to enable Petitioner to claim a refund of TED paid on the goods cleared by the DTA units.

"Government of India Ministry of Commerce and Industry Directorate General of Foreign Trade Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi Policy Circular No.16(RE-2012/2009-14) Dated: 15th March, 2013 To, All Regional Authorities All Development Commissioners, SEZ Subject : Clarification regarding TED Refund where TED exemption is available.

(emphasis supplied) Therefore, such categories of supply, including supplies of goods by DTA unit to EOU, which were exempted ab-initio were eligible to receive refund of TED.

7. The object of FTP was to encourage DTA suppliers by providing a refund of TED in terms of para 8.3(c), subject to fulfillment of formalities and stipulations in Chapter 8 of FTP. This would generate foreign exchange as a consequence of goods supplied as inputs or otherwise, finally exported by the EOU. The EOU, on the other hand, could only avail of the entitlement of the DTA supplier if the DTA supplier had not taken rebate or Cenvat credit facility (as per para 8.5) treating it as deemed export. This was followed until the issue of the Policy Circular dated 15 March 2013.

10. The Petitioner contended that Petitioner shifted its factory from Navi Mumbai to Ambernath in the year 2015, the documents about the refund claim were misplaced and could be located only in and around 2019, after which its sought advice from its consultants. Therefore, vide letter dated 9 July 2019; Petitioner made a detailed submission requesting Respondent No.4 to grant TED refund. It is submitted that upon receipt of the said letter, Respondent No.4 had directed TED refund to Petitioner and therefore, vide letter dated 24 July 2019, Petitioner submitted the original documents to Respondent No.3 after which a meeting was scheduled on 18 November 2019.