Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. The APTEL referred to the definitions of the terms “manufacture,” “manufactured goods” and “deemed exports” under the FTP as well as the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter, “CEA 1944”) and observed that the FTP was expressly designed to incentivize domestic production of movable goods for export or deemed export and the concept of “goods” under the statute denoted a tangible and movable property, subject to  classification under the Customs Tariff. Therefore, a generating station, as in the instant case, comprising of turbines, boilers, auxiliaries and associated civil works, was nevertheless an integrated, immovable asset assembled on-site and did not, as a whole, constitute a manufactured good capable of being exported under the FTP. An attempt to sever individual components to obtain the relief of deemed export is inconsistent with the scheme of the statute, requiring the final product shipped or deemed to be shipped to a buyer outside the jurisdiction of India. Observing that the NPL’s reliance on Para 8.3 was based on misconstrued interpretation of the letter as well as the spirit of the regime, it held that said fiscal incentives were inherently inapplicable to an in-situ coal-based thermal power plant.

30. In its Rejoinder dated 15.11.2017, NPL insists that the Counter Affidavit dated 12.09.2017 misconceives both the factual matrix and the legal contours of the “Change in Law” provision. It reiterates that the statutory framework of the FTP contemplates deemed export treatment for capital goods supplied under ICB, irrespective of physical export, and that numerous circulars by DGFT and meetings of PIC had long signalled such availability. The Rejoinder emphasizes that the PIC meeting dated 15.03.2011 and the Public Notices dated 27.04.2011 and 28.04.2011 are legislative in character, having been issued under rule-making powers conferred by the Parliament, and thus squarely fall within the ambit of Article 13.

55. Countering the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the Appellants, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the opposing Respondent(s), while vehemently contesting the claims of the Appellants have reiterated their successful claims before the APTEL.

56. Before we delve into the submissions moved by the Appellants, it is pertinent to refer to Chapter 8 of the FTP, which reads as follows:

“8.1 Deemed Exports ‘Deemed Exports’ refer to those transactions in which goods supplied do not leave country, and  payment for such supplies is received either in Indian rupees or in free foreign exchange. 8.2 Categories of Supply Following categories of supply of goods by main / sub-contractors shall be regarded as ‘Deemed Exports’ under FTP, provided goods are manufactured in India:

74. The instant issue is answered against the Appellants to the effect that they were not entitled to the deemed export benefits under Para 8.3 of the FTP.

75. Having answered in the negative as aforesaid with regard to the entitlement of the Appellants for the deemed export benefits under the FTP, we ought not delve into the plea as to the alleged withdrawal of the said benefits through notifications of the DGFT dated 28.12.2011 and 21.03.2012 collectively and whether that would amount to a “Change in Law” as per Article 13 of the PPA.