Case Law Details
Carlo Technical Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Kerala High Court)
The Kerala High Court has held that even if inadvertently certain amount has been paid in a case where there is no provision in the Foreign Trade Policy for refund, the Government cannot unduly retain the amount. The case involved payment of Terminal Excise duty, after availing Cenvat credit, by the assessee-EOU while making certain clearances to another EOU. The High Court observed that the appellate authority ought to have examined the matter in the background that it is a welfare State and the Department/ Government do not indulge into profit making. The appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal afresh.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER/JUDGEMENT
Through instant petition, challenge has been laid to an order Ext.P1 dated 15.01.2014 passed by the appellate Committee in Appeal No.12013/6/2013 preferred against the order dated 11.02.2013 of the Development Commissioner, Cochin Special Economic Zone. The short question involved in this case is if the petitioner who was not required to deposit Terminal Excise Duty (TED) for export of goods from one unit to another, can the authorities remain as a mute spectator is not refunding the amount on the ground of any provision in the Foreign Trade Regulation and Development Act, 1992 with consequential relief of refund or alternatively quashing Ext.P2 letter dated 5.11.2019.
2. The facts in brief are as follows: Petitioner, a private limited company, is engaged in the activity of manufacture of parts and accessories used for ATM machines (hereinafter referred as ‘goods’) classified under Chapter Heading 84 of erstwhile Central Excise Tariff Act,1985. It is an Export Oriented Unit (hereinafter called EOU)governed by Chapter 6 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14. Petitioner holds a letter of permission dated 16.02.2010 issued by Cochin Special Economic Zone, which was renewed from time to time. Certain clearances to NCR Corporation Private Limited, Puducherry, another EOU during the period 2010-May,2011 vide 460 invoices were made on payment of applicable central excise duty and Central sales tax. While making the payment of central excise duty in respect of the said clearance, petitioner resorted to utillization of accumulated CENVAT Credit as evident from the tabulated form of invoices, duty tax Ext.P4.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
