TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court directs expert bodies to proceed with pending proceedings, consider submissions and pass orders expeditiously.</h1> <h3>M/s. BAPL Industries Limited, Versus Union of India, The Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi, Development Commissioner, MEPZ Special Economic Zone, Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore</h3> M/s. BAPL Industries Limited, Versus Union of India, The Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi, Development Commissioner, MEPZ Special Economic ... Issues:1. Quashing of appellate order regarding deemed exports and DTA entitlement.2. Interpretation of Exim Policy 1997-2002 and Notification No.2/95.3. Application of principles from Virlon Textile Mills case.4. Adjudication of technical issues by CESTAT and Commissioner of Central Excise.Analysis:1. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned appellate order to consider deemed exports for DTA entitlement. The petitioner, an EOU manufacturing cotton yarn, relied on Exim Policy 1997-2002 allowing DTA sales up to 50% of FOB value subject to conditions. The circular highlighted discrepancies in DTA entitlement against deemed exports, leading to revenue loss and issuance of show cause notices.2. The petitioner argued that the issue was previously decided by CESTAT and referred to the Virlon Textile Mills case, emphasizing the equivalence of DTA sales against foreign exchange to physical exports. The judgment clarified that DTA sales against foreign exchange fell under the proviso to Section 3(1) of the 1944 Act, entitling EOUs to benefits under Notification No.2/95-CE without limitations imposed by para 9.9(b) of the Exim Policy.3. Citing the Ginni International case and subsequent judgments following Virlon's principles, the petitioner contended that consistency in applying the Supreme Court's ruling should guide the current case. The senior standing counsel argued for technical adjudication by CESTAT and the Commissioner of Central Excise, emphasizing the need for factual examination before applying legal principles.4. The court acknowledged the settled principles from Virlon's case but deferred technical adjudication to the expert bodies, CESTAT and Commissioner of Central Excise. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's claims in light of Virlon's principles, ensuring due process and opportunity for submissions. The judgment emphasized the need for a detailed examination of records and policy decisions by the expert bodies, rather than through writ proceedings.In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition, directing the expert bodies to proceed with the pending proceedings, consider the petitioner's submissions, and pass orders expeditiously while adhering to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Virlon's case.
TaxTMI 