TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 386
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act, 1956. The petitioner no. 2 is the director of the petitioner no. 1Company. The company is engaged in the manufacturing and export of the goods. The petitionercompany is recognized as a 100% Export Oriented Unit ["EOU" for short] for its manufacturing activities. The petitioner would purchase raw materials and inputs from the units situated in Domestic Tariff Area ["DTA" for short]. The petitioner also would purchase furnace oil. In terms of the Foreign Trade Policy prevailing at the relevant time ie., the Foreign Trade Policy 20042009, the petitioner used to claim reimbursement of the Central Sales Tax paid on raw materials and inputs purchased from the units situated in DTA. On the purchase of oil, the petitioners would claim duty dra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted that no such condition can be imposed through the Hand Book of Procedures, as was sought to be done in the present case. [ii] With respect to the petitioners' claim of duty drawback, counsel submitted that there was no restriction in the foreign trade policy. The drawback would be available only when the purchases are made by the Units from the depots of oil companies directly. The circular which imposes such a restriction is arbitrary and discriminatory. [iii] Counsel submitted that in any case, both the grievances were barred by latches and delay. [iv] Counsel for the petitioners submitted that these issues were considered at length by this Court in the case of Asahi Songwon Colours Limited v. Union of India, reported in 2017 [356] E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Relevant observations of the Court, read thus - "18. A minute scrutiny of these provisions contained in para. 6.11 would reveal that the language used in clauses (a), (b) and (c), in general, was not made limited to the supplies from a DTA unit. As noted, clauses (a) and (b) both confined their application to the supplies made by the DTA unit. Clause (c) itself contained two situations. In subclause (i) what was envisaged was reimbursement of CST on goods manufactured in India. Subclause (ii) envisaged exemption from payment of CST on goods purchased from DTA on goods manufactured in India. Thus the policy wherever intended to limit the benefit of an EOU on procurement made from a DTA unit, it was so specifically provided. When therefore,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isions of Duty Drawback Rules mutatis mutandis to the FTP and HOP. We find substance in the contention of Mr Ghosh that the HOP is nothing but an administrative guideline as would appear from a combined reading of Para 2.4 of the FTP and Section 6 of the FTDR Act. We have already pointed out that Section 3 of the FTDR Act grants power to the Respondent No.1 to make provisions relating to imports and exports and the Respondent No.1 under Section 5 of the FTDR Act can formulate and announce the foreign trade policy. It further appears from Section 6(3) of the FTDR Act that of the powers conferred upon the Respondent No.1 under the FTDR Act, except those provided in Sections 3,5,15,16 and 19, all others can be delegated to the Respondent No.2 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to incorporate the duty drawback Rules by reference, it would amount to acceptance of the proposition that the Respondent No.2 is authorized to deal with under the FTDR Act, the similar matters relating to duty and tax refunds as provided under Section 75 of the Customs Act, Section 37 of the Central Excise Act and Section 93A read with Section 94 of the Finance Act, 1994 although not authorized under the FTDR Act. We are in agreement with Mr Ghosh, the learned advocate for the petitioner, that the conferment of such power to the Respondent No.2 to adopt the duty drawback rules without any power to legislate either expressly or otherwise would amount to permitting the levy or collection of tax without authority of law in violation of Arti....