Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.2 Interestingly, insofar as the earlier two applications were concerned, refund of TED was allowed by the Policy Interpretation Committee (PIC) and/or Policy Relaxation Committee (PRC) vide its order dated 23.07.2014. Thus, for the quarter April, 2011 to June, 2011, the petitioner obtained a refund of Rs.20,21,241/- while for the July, 2011 to September, 2011 quarter, the petitioner, was refunded TED amounting to Rs.96,95,182/-.

2.3 However, curiously, for the period October, 2011 to December, 2011 the request made by the petitioner for refund of TED was rejected by respondent no.3. The petitioner had sought refund of TED amounting Rs.83,64,802.86; an amount which was paid by it at the time of clearance of goods. The rejection of the petitioner's application by respondent no. 3 was based on the decision taken by the PRC/ PIC at its meeting held on 04.12.2012.

2.4 In view of the fact that the PRC had at its meeting held on 09.09.2014, cleared its request for refund of TED against supply of goods made to 100% EOUs, an application was filed with respondent no.4 on 23.09.2014 for refund of TED for October, 2011 to December, 2011. Reference in this application was made to the decision taken in the PRC meeting on 09.09.2014.

2.5 The record shows that the following objection by way of an endorsement was made on the petitioner's application itself, whereby, in effect, the petitioner's request for refund of TED was rejected: -

3. The record shows that, resultantly, on 17.04.2015, respondent no.4 forwarded the petitioner's claim for refund of TED to respondent no.3 for necessary action.

3.1 Once again, the petitioner, after waiting for nearly 7 months, took up the matter with respondent no.5 by sending a reminder on 05.11.2015 for refund of TED.

3.2 The petitioner's request for refund was declined by respondent no.3 vide communication dated 1/2.12.2015. However, while indicating to the petitioner that its claim for refund of TED was not admissible in view of the provisions of paragraph 7.04 of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP), it was advised to file a reply within a period of 90 days from the date of issuance of the said communication.

(iii) Supplies of goods by DTA unit to EOU/EHTP/STP/BTP unit Thus such categories of supply which are exempt ab initio will not be eligible to receive refund of TED."

12.1 As would be evident that the issuance of notification No.4 dated 18.04.2013 brought about an amendment in clause (c). The amendment brought about is to the effect that refund of TED would be given only if exemption is not available. Furthermore, exemption from TED was made available, inter alia, qua supply of goods by a DTA unit to an EOU. Clearly, the amendment sought to do away with the provision in the unamended clause (c) of para 8.3 of the FTP 2009-2014 which granted exemption from TED only where supplies were made against ICB, with an added provision for grant of refund of TED in all other cases.