Deemed export refund entitlement under the Foreign Trade Policy survives later clarification and separate excise remedies.

Supplies to Export Oriented Units were treated as deemed exports under the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14, and paragraph 8.3(c) provided for refund of terminal excise duty where exemption was not available. The entitlement had to be tested against the policy in force when the supplies were made, so a later clarificatory circular dated 15.03.2013 could not remove a benefit already available under the existing framework. The policy remedy was also separate from the Central Excise/CENVAT regime, and the availability of an excise-based claim did not extinguish an independently available refund under the export policy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of terminal excise duty for supplies made to Export Oriented Units under the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14 for the period prior to the clarificatory circular dated 15.03.2013; (ii) Whether the refund claim could be denied on the ground that relief was available under the Central Excise regime.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of terminal excise duty for supplies made to Export Oriented Units under the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14 for the period prior to the clarificatory circular dated 15.03.2013.

Analysis: Supplies to Export Oriented Units fell within the category of deemed exports under the policy. Paragraph 8.3(c) provided that, where exemption from terminal excise duty was not available, refund of terminal excise duty would be granted. The petitioner's supplies were made before the clarificatory circular dated 15.03.2013 and the entitlement had to be examined with reference to the policy then in force. A later clarification could not take away a benefit already available under the existing policy framework.

Conclusion: Yes. The petitioner was entitled to refund of terminal excise duty under the policy for the relevant supplies.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim could be denied on the ground that relief was available under the Central Excise regime.

Analysis: The Court held that the Foreign Trade Policy remedy and the Central Excise/CENVAT framework operated in separate fields. The existence of a possible excise remedy did not justify refusal of a refund claim that was independently available under the export policy. The authorities had proceeded on an erroneous premise in treating the excise route as a substitute for the policy entitlement.

Conclusion: No. The refund claim could not be rejected on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The impugned rejection of the refund claims was set aside and the respondents were directed to process the applications in accordance with the applicable foreign trade policy, with consequential interest relief granted by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Foreign Trade Policy expressly grants refund of terminal excise duty for deemed exports, a subsequent clarification cannot defeat claims arising from supplies made before that clarification, and the availability of a separate excise remedy does not extinguish the policy-based entitlement.

---