Case Law Details
M/s. Motherson Sumi Electric Wires Vs UOI & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
Petitioner has contended that it was not possible for it to avail of exemption from Central Excise Duty under the notification No.22/2003-CE, dated 31.03.2003 till such time 100% EOU provides a CT-3 certificate. That being stated, in my opinion, it may not be necessary to deliberate on this aspect of the matter as at the relevant point in time the worst that could be said against the petitioner is that it had available to it two options, first, to claim exemption and second, to pay duty and claim refund. This is, especially so, in view of the fact that in the instant case supplies of goods were made by the petitioner to other divisions of MSSL which had a status of EOUs. The pivotal point is that the FTP 2009-2014 conferred a right on the petitioner, who, admittedly, was a DTA supplier, at the relevant point in time, to seek refund of TED, as the supplies had been made to 100% EOUs, albeit, under a non-ICB route.
To my mind, the argument that since excise duty was not paid via cash but was paid by utilizing the CENVAT credit route and hence, the petitioner would not be entitled to claim refund is unsustainable as there is no bar in law in paying duty by utilizing CENVAT credit (See paragraph 17 of Jayaswal Neco Ltd.).
For the very same reason, I am not impressed by the argument advanced on behalf of the respondents that the refund of TED would result in monetization of CENVAT credit. The object of the FTP is to provide impetus to export either by direct physical export or via the deemed export route. In case refund of TED is not given qua deemed export, it would result in export of duties, which, in the long run would be detrimental to the cause of the exporters and the Indian economy.
Insofar as the judgment in Alstom India Ltd. is concerned, the same is not applicable to the facts and circumstances obtaining in the present One of the crucial differences between the instant case and the Alstom’scase, is that in that case the writ petitioner before the Court had made supplies to NTPC against ICB and, therefore, payment of excise duty was exempt. Such a situation does not obtain in the present case. Furthermore, it may be noted that the Court did not in any manner upset the decision of the coordinate Bench in Kandoi Metal Powders Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2014 (302) ELT 209 (Del.).
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Respected Sir/Madam,
we have claimed TED refund from DGFT but they have rejected all our application due to Recipient Copy Of Original Invalidation Letter & Board Resolution/Power of attorney, is this documents are mandatory, is there any notification, Kindly advise.