Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of terminal excise duty on supplies made for the nuclear project and whether the rejection of the claim under the Foreign Trade Policy was sustainable.
Analysis: The policy on deemed exports in Chapter 7 of the Foreign Trade Policy extends benefits to supplies made to eligible nuclear power projects. The materials on record showed that the project satisfied the relevant policy conditions, including the requisite certification by the Department of Atomic Energy, and the contract itself contemplated the refund benefit. The mere characterisation of the work as construction of a bund and retaining wall did not justify denial of the benefit when the supply was otherwise covered by the deemed export framework and the contractual and departmental certificates supported the claim.
Conclusion: The rejection of the terminal excise duty refund was unsustainable, and the petitioner was entitled to the refund claimed.
Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were quashed and the respondent authority was directed to grant refund of terminal excise duty in accordance with the policy and the departmental recommendation.
Ratio Decidendi: Supplies qualifying as deemed exports under the Foreign Trade Policy, and supported by the competent departmental certification required by the policy, cannot be denied the corresponding refund benefit on a purely restrictive view of the nature of the civil work involved.