Terminal excise duty refund cannot be denied for non-availment of exemption or minor procedural objections.

The Delhi High Court held that the appellate remedy under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 was confined to orders of the adjudicating authority imposing penalty or confiscation, so the maintainability objection failed. On refund of terminal excise duty, the Court held that refund could not be denied merely because exemption had not been availed, where the policy permitted refund in such circumstances. A procedural objection regarding the refund application was also rejected, as the declaration bore the corporation's stamp and stated that Cenvat credit or rebate had not been taken. The refund rejection was set aside and costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an appeal lay against the impugned order under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992; (ii) whether refund of terminal excise duty could be denied on the ground that exemption had not been availed and because of alleged deficiencies in the refund application.

Issue (i): Whether an appeal lay against the impugned order under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.

Analysis: The appellate remedy under Section 15 is confined to orders passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 13, which concerns imposition of penalty or confiscation. The impugned order was not of that nature and therefore did not fall within the statutory appellate channel invoked by the respondents.

Conclusion: The objection to maintainability was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether refund of terminal excise duty could be denied on the ground that exemption had not been availed and because of alleged deficiencies in the refund application.

Analysis: The applicable policy permitted refund where exemption had not been availed. Since the petitioner had paid terminal excise duty without claiming exemption, denial of refund on that basis was unsustainable. The objection that the NTPC declaration was not on letterhead was also found untenable, as the document bore the corporation's stamp and declared that Cenvat credit or rebate had not been availed.

Conclusion: The refund claim was upheld and the impugned refusal was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The refund rejection could not stand, and the petitioner was entitled to refund of terminal excise duty with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where exemption was not availed and the policy did not bar refund, terminal excise duty could not be refused merely on procedural objections or on a misconceived view of the statutory appellate framework.

---