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>Appeal Dismissed for Filing Delay without Explanation: Interpretation of Foreign Trade Policy</h1> <h3>Union Of India Ministry Of Industry And Commerce, New Delhi, The Director General Of Foreign Trade Ministry Of Commerce And Industry, New Delhi, The Joint Director Of Foreign Trade New Delhi, The Joint Director General Of Foreign Trade Bangalore Versus M/s. Molex (India) Private Limited</h3> The Court dismissed the appeal due to a delay in filing for condonation without a satisfactory explanation. The case focused on eligibility for a refund ... Refund of terminal excise duty - deemed export or not - supplies of goods by DTA unit to EOU unit - HELD THAT:- The judgment delivered in the case of ACER INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2018 (9) TMI 398 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] shall be applicable in the case mutatis mutandis where Delhi High Court in Kandoi Metal Powders Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd’s case [2014 (2) TMI 773 - DELHI HIGH COURT], has held that once the supply of goods fall within the category of deemed export, the unit would be entitled to refund of TED. As the issue has already been decided by Division Bench of this Court, no further orders are required to be passed in the present case - Appeal dismissed. Issues involved:Delay in filing appeal for condonation, eligibility for refund of terminal excise duty, interpretation of Foreign Trade Policy, applicability of previous judgments.Analysis:1. Delay in filing appeal for condonation: The judgment begins with an application for condonation of delay in the appeal, which was 332 days. The State failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, leading the Court to dismiss the condonation request. However, the Court proceeded to assess the merit of the appeal despite the delay.2. Eligibility for refund of terminal excise duty: The crux of the case revolved around a writ petition seeking a refund of terminal excise duty. The petitioner contended that supplies of goods from a DTA unit to an EOU unit were not exempt ab initio, making them eligible for a refund of TED paid. The relief sought included declarations on the exemption of TED and the processing of refund applications in accordance with the law.3. Interpretation of Foreign Trade Policy: The judgment extensively quoted provisions from the Foreign Trade Policy related to benefits for deemed exports, eligibility for refund of TED, and the conditions for claiming refunds. The Court analyzed the provisions to determine the entitlement of the petitioner to the refund claimed.4. Applicability of previous judgments: Reference was made to a previous judgment in the case of ACER INDIA PVT. LTD., where it was established that goods supplied to Export Oriented Units were entitled to tax refunds. The Division Bench upheld the entitlement for a refund claim, emphasizing that the tax wrongly paid could not be retained by the respondents.5. Conclusion: The Court concluded that the issue in the present case was already decided in the ACER INDIA PVT. LTD. judgment. Despite the mention of a Special Leave Petition in the matter, as no interim order was granted by the Supreme Court, the Court deemed the previous judgment applicable mutatis mutandis and dismissed the appeal. No costs were awarded in the judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
