Court upholds petitioner's refund claim under Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14, orders processing within 3 months

The Court quashed the denial of the petitioner's refund claim under the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14, emphasizing the petitioner's entitlement to benefits as a deemed export unit. Despite subsequent policy amendments, the Court held that eligibility for refund should be determined under the existing policy provisions. Citing a similar decision by the Calcutta High Court, the Court directed the respondents to process the petitioner's refund claims within three months, based on the 2009 policy provisions.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to denial of refund claim under Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the denial of its refund claim under the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14. The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing metal powders, claimed refund of Terminal Excise Duty (TED) for supplies made to Export-oriented Units (EOUs) during specific periods. The refund applications were denied by the third respondent, leading to subsequent correspondence seeking relaxation, which was also turned down.

2. The petitioner contended that its unit and supplies should be treated as "deemed export" as per the policy provisions. The petitioner relied on specific paras of the policy, such as para 8.2(b) and para 8.3(c), to claim benefits entitled to deemed export units. The policy was further relaxed from 01.04.2013, exempting such units from paying TED. The petitioner argued that the subsequent amendment should not be a reason for denying the refund claim under the existing policy.

3. The respondents, however, relied on counter-affidavits and communications directing adherence to the amended circular. They suggested the petitioner seek refund under the Central Excise Act. The Court noted that the petitioner's engagement in deemed export was undisputed, and its entitlement to benefits under the policy was clear from relevant policy provisions.

4. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's eligibility for refund should be determined under the existing policy provisions, irrespective of subsequent amendments. The Court referred to a similar decision by the Calcutta High Court, emphasizing entitlement to refund once goods fall within the deemed export category. Consequently, the impugned orders denying the refund claim were quashed, directing the respondents to process the petitioner's refund claims in accordance with the 2009 policy within three months.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the petitioner's challenge, the contentions made, the respondents' arguments, and the Court's reasoning leading to the decision to quash the denial of the refund claim under the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14.

---