Deemed export benefits are independent: rejection of excise exemption does not bar terminal excise duty refund.

A fiscal scheme for deemed exports may confer separate and independent benefits, including duty exemption, duty drawback, refund of terminal excise duty, and a special import licence. Rejection of a claim for excise-duty exemption does not, by itself, defeat a separate claim for terminal excise duty refund where the conditions for that relief are otherwise met. A procedural Handbook cannot override or curtail the substantive benefit granted by the Export and Import Policy. The refund claim, being made before the DGFT, lay within that authority's forum. The policy therefore supports independent entitlement to terminal excise duty refund for deemed exports when the statutory conditions are satisfied.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent, as a holder of an advance intermediate licence supplying refractory goods to an exporter as deemed exports, was entitled to refund of terminal excise duty under paragraph 122 of the Export and Import Policy 1992-97, notwithstanding rejection of its claim for excise-duty exemption and the absence of a specific refund procedure in the Handbook.

Analysis: The supply of goods to the exporter fell within the deemed export framework under Chapter X of the policy. Paragraph 122 provided four distinct benefits for deemed exports, including duty exemption, duty drawback, refund of terminal excise duty, and special import licence. These benefits operated on different factual and legal conditions and were not mutually substitutive by choice of the claimant. Rejection of the exemption claim did not bar a separate claim for terminal excise duty refund where the relevant conditions for that relief were otherwise satisfied. The Handbook was procedural in nature and could not override or curtail a substantive benefit conferred by the policy. As the claim for refund was made before the DGFT, that authority was the proper forum for the refund claim.

Conclusion: The respondent was entitled to refund of terminal excise duty, and the denial of that refund was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The policy granted an independent refund benefit for deemed exports, and failure of one benefit claim did not defeat entitlement to another benefit under the same scheme.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal scheme confers multiple distinct benefits for deemed exports, rejection of a claim for one benefit does not preclude entitlement to another independently available benefit if its conditions are satisfied, and a procedural handbook cannot take away the substantive relief granted by the policy.

---