Court directs refund claim processing under 2009 Policy, Delhi HC decision binds respondents.

The Court allowed the Writ Petitions, setting aside the impugned order and directing the processing of the refund claim in accordance with the 2009 Policy. The Court held that the decision of the Delhi High Court bound the respondents, leading to the allowance of the Writ Petition and the quashing of the impugned order. Consequently, there was no need to further examine the correctness of Policy Circular No. 16 dated 15.03.2013, resulting in the closure of the related Writ Petition.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of refund claims, challenge to Policy Circular No. 16 dated 15.03.2013, entitlement for refund of Terminal Excise Duty.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of their refund claims and the Policy Circular No. 16 dated 15.03.2013. The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to a refund of the Terminal Excise Duty (TED). The Commissioner of Central Excise contended that the petitioner was not entitled to a refund, citing the Policy Circular. The petitioner sought to have their refund applications considered without reference to the Policy Circular, aiming for a prospective effect to process the refund claim. The Court noted that a similar issue was addressed in a previous case involving a DTA unit supplying to 100% EOU, where the Court allowed the Writ Petition based on the decision of the Delhi High Court. The Court emphasized that subsequent amendments liberalizing the position should not deny the refund scheme for payments already made.

The Court referred to the decision of the Delhi High Court, which held that the petitioner was entitled to a refund based on the existing policy provisions. The Court quashed the impugned orders and directed the authorities to process the refund claims within a specified timeframe. The Court held that the decision of the Delhi High Court bound the respondents in the present case, leading to the allowance of the Writ Petition and the quashing of the impugned order. The Court directed the third respondent to process the refund claim in accordance with the 2009 Policy, considering the petitioner's refund application.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the Writ Petitions challenging the rejection of refund claims, set aside the impugned order, and directed the processing of the refund claim in line with the 2009 Policy. Consequently, there was no need to further examine the correctness of Policy Circular No. 16 dated 15.03.2016, leading to the closure of the related Writ Petition. No costs were awarded, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were also closed.

---