Case Law Details
In respect of exports made from 14-5-2009 till 6-7-2009, the grant of the refund would be governed by the conditions under the previous Notification No. 41/2007, dated 6-10-2007. For the remaining period, refund would be governed by the new Notification No. 17/2009, dated 7-7-2009. The conditions prescribed in the two notifications are somewhat different. The precedent notification in force till 6-7-2009 had a condition that the storage and warehouse is exclusively used for the purpose of storage or warehouse of the export goods. However, there is no such condition in the successor notification applicable from 7-7-2009.
It is not in dispute that the appellants have stored some inputs in addition to export goods in the impugned warehouse and, going by the condition of the previous notification read strictly as has been done by the authorities below, the appellants are not eligible for refund on exports made upto 6-7-2009 in this regard. However, I find no reason to deny them refund for the period from 7-7-2009 onwards as the relevant notification does not prescribe any condition that the storage and warehouse should be exclusively used only for the purpose of export goods.
CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL PROCESSING (P) LTD.
Versus
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
