Court upholds petitioner's compliance with exemption, dismisses suppression claims, grants customs duty relief. Writ petition allowed.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that they complied with the conditions of the exemption Notification by using the imported Rotor Blades for the specified purpose in the manufacture of Windmills. Allegations of suppression were dismissed, confirming the petitioner's eligibility for customs duty exemption. The court deemed it appropriate to entertain the writ petition despite the availability of an alternative remedy, ultimately allowing the writ petition and closing the connected miscellaneous petition.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the condition relating to "use of the goods for specified purpose" under the exemption Notification No.12/2012-Cus.
2. Allegations of suppression of facts by the petitioner.
3. Eligibility of the petitioner for customs duty exemption.
4. Availability of an alternative remedy and the appropriateness of invoking writ jurisdiction.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of the Condition Relating to "Use of the Goods for Specified Purpose":
The petitioner, engaged in the manufacture, erection, installation, and commissioning of Wind Operated Electricity Generators (WOEG), imported Rotor Blades availing customs duty exemptions under Notification No.12/2012-Cus. The exemption is contingent on the goods being used in the manufacture of Windmills. The petitioner argued that the sale of Rotor Blades to their client does not bar them from availing the exemption since they retained the contractual responsibility of manufacturing the Windmill at the client's site. The court noted that the Notification does not explicitly prohibit the sale of goods before their utilization in assembly and erection. The petitioner fulfilled the condition by using the Rotor Blades for the specified purpose at the customer's site, thus complying with the exemption requirements.

2. Allegations of Suppression of Facts:
The respondent issued a show cause notice alleging suppression of facts and demanded differential customs duty, invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner refuted these allegations, citing various judicial precedents that require something positive beyond mere inaction or failure to constitute suppression. The court found no evidence of deliberate withholding of information by the petitioner, thus rejecting the allegations of suppression.

3. Eligibility for Customs Duty Exemption:
The respondent contended that the petitioner did not comply with the condition of using the imported goods for the specified purpose, as the goods were sold to the client. The court, however, observed that the goods were indeed used for the specified purpose in the manufacture of Windmills at the client's site. The sale of Rotor Blades did not negate the petitioner's eligibility for the exemption since the petitioner retained responsibility for the complete assembly and commissioning of the Windmills. The court emphasized that the petitioner's actions aligned with the intent of the exemption Notification.

4. Availability of an Alternative Remedy:
The respondent argued that the petitioner should have exhausted the alternative remedy under Section 129 A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, instead of directly approaching the court. The petitioner countered by citing judicial precedents that allow for the invocation of writ jurisdiction in cases of unfairness, unreasonableness, or violation of principles of natural justice. The court agreed with the petitioner, noting that the impugned order was based on a misinterpretation of the exemption Notification and that the petitioner's approach to the court was justified.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned order dated 19.12.2018, holding that the petitioner complied with the conditions of the exemption Notification by using the imported Rotor Blades for the specified purpose in the manufacture of Windmills. The allegations of suppression were unfounded, and the petitioner was eligible for the customs duty exemption. The court also found it appropriate to entertain the writ petition despite the availability of an alternative remedy. The writ petition was allowed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

---