2015 (3) TMI 626

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e will argue the matter based on the material placed on the record. 4. This is a second round of litigation for the petitioner. The petitioner had approached this court earlier by way of a writ petition, which was numbered as : WP(C) 1331/2015. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 11.02.2015. 4.1 After alluding to the facts arising in the case, an operative direction was issued to the effect that the respondents will examine the case of the petitioner for refund of Terminal Excise Duty (in short TED) and pass suitable orders. 4.2 Since, the facts are, broadly, indicated in the order dated 11.02.2015, passed in WP (C) 1331/2015, the same need not be repeated herein. 4.3 I may only briefly note that it is the pe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ranted to the petitioner. 6. I tend to disagree with the submissions of Mr. Narula, both on the ground of maintainability as well as on merits. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, an appeal under Section 15 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (in short FTDRA) is maintainable in respect of an order passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 13 of the FTDRA. Section 13, however, adverts to the power of the adjudicating authority to impose penalty or pass an order of confiscation. 6.1 Quite clearly, the impugned order does not fall within the ambit of Section 13 of the FTDRA. Therefore, the said objection is untenable. 6.2 Mr. Narula also relies upon an order of the Single Judge da....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... fulfilment of other conditions..." 6.4 In this case the admitted position, is that, the petitioner has not availed of exemption from TED. Therefore, quite logically, the refund of TED, cannot be denied. 6.5 I may only note the other objection taken in the impugned order, is that, there is a deficiency in the application, in as much as, the declaration made by NTPC Ltd. was not on its letterhead; an objection which is completely untenable. The document, which is appended at pages 49-50 of the paper book, clearly shows that the said document bears the stamp of the NTPC Ltd. The document declares that Cenvat Credit/Rebate under the Central Excise Rules has not been availed by NTPC Ltd. Therefore, this objection cannot stand in the way o....