TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 833
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted under para 6.8(d) & (e) of the Foreign Trade Policy. (2) The decision dated 23.11.2012(Annexure 3) taken by the Board of Approval in its meeting, being applied to the Petitioner may be modified as permitted under para 6.8(d) & (e) of the Foreign Trade Policy. (3) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed." 2. The petitioner-Company was established for the purpose of setting up an industrial unit for manufacture of marble slabs, tiles and dressed marble blocks at Udaipur. Being an indigenous unit, it decided to switch over as an Export Oriented Unit(for short 'EOU') to derive benefits of the policies of Government of India, therefore, it applied for obtaining let....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... exports. Such sales of scrap/waste/ remnants shall not be subject to achievement of positive NFE. In respect of items not covered by norms, DC may fix ad hoc norms for a period of six months and within this period, norms should be fixed by Norms Committee. Ad hoc norms will continue till such time norms are fixed by Norms Committee. Sale of waste/scrap/ remnants by units not entitled to DTA sale, or sales beyond DTA sale entitlement shall be on payment of full duties. Scraps/waste/remnants may also be exported." 4. It is contended by the petitioner that the Development Commissioner had initially fixed ad hoc norms for wastage in production from Imported Blocks to the extent of 8.92% and wastage to the extent of 27.56% from indigenous bl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sale under sub-para 6.8(1) on prior intimation to the custom authorities. In 6.8(e) an EOU is permitted to sell scraps/waste/remnants arising out of production process or in connection thereof in the domestic market on payment of concessional duties within over all ceiling of 50% of value of exports, with a further stipulation that sale of waste/scraps/remnants by EOU shall be on payment of full duty. It is contended that the respondents have illegally and without jurisdiction issued the impugned order by fixing a norm of 2% as maximum permissible limit of sale of rejects/scraps/waste/ remnants in a domestic market. 6. Per contra, the counsel for the respondents Mr. Vishal Thakur has argued that the Board of Approval had rightly permitt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xed by Norms Committee. Ad hoc norms are to continue till such time norms are fixed by Norms Committee. The Development Commissioner had given permission to the petitioner to off load it scrap in the domestic market in the year 2004 @ 8.92% of inputs of imported block and 27.56% of inputs in case of indigenous block. This has been modified to 2% by the Board in its meeting held on 23.11.2012. This decision was later affirmed in a subsequent meeting held on 18 .9 2014. 9. Reading of the minutes of the Board held on the 23.11.2012 and 18.9.2014 does not show what was the criteria adopted by the Board while fixing the norms at 2% as maximum permissible limit of sale of rejects / scraps/waste / remnants in a domestic market. The Development ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are of the opinion that the two Paragraphs namely 6.8 (d) and 6.8 (e) are distinct and separate from each other. The word reject and waste have been defined in the Oxford dictionary to mean "to decide not to use, sell, publish, etc. something because its quality is not good enough" whereas waste/scrap means "things that are not wanted or cannot be used for their original purpose, but which have some value for the material they are made of" . The Board has in its meeting held on 23.11.2012 has not made any difference between the two categories and has clubbed the two together which is impressible. The decision taken by the Board does not indicate why there has been a deviation from the norms fixed in the year 2004 by the Development Commiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le as per the overall limits fixed and reducing to a mere 2% the Board has also caused loss of revenue to the State. 13. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the respondents is not applicable to the facts of the present case, since the validity of circular dated 30.8.2005 and Notification No. 24 dated 31.8.2005 which had the effect of amending para 6.8(a) and para 6.8(h) of Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009 was under consideration before the Supreme Court. The policy in hand pertained to the question whether DTA sales by 100% EOUs would form an integral part of the EOUs scheme ? The case in hand pertains to challenging the permission granted by the Board of Approval for EOUs limiting the disposal of rejects/scrap to only 2%. Therefor....