2019 (9) TMI 136

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the Respondent. ORDER Heard the Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. The writ petitioner is a 100% export oriented unit. It is engaged in manufacture of Match Sticks. M/s. Eutrabell India, Sivakasi was issued with letter of permission dated 6-11-2012, for transferring the capital goods in question from their unit to the w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....talling the capital goods within a period of one year. Instead the earlier notification was so amended as to provide for such goods being installed or otherwise used within the unit within the period of validity of the Letter of Permission (LOP). 5. The Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner states that this is a substitutive amendment and therefore retrospective. The stand of the petitio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... particular reliance on the decision unreported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 319 in the case of East West Exporters v. Assistant Collector of Customs. 8. I carefully considered the rival contentions. 9. It is not in dispute that the purchase of goods by the writ petitioner from Eutrabell India partakes the character of an import. This is because, both of them are 100% export oriented units.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....course, the petitioner could have obtained extension of the time limit not exceeding 5 years. 10. In this case, the petitioner did not obtain such an extension. Therefore, on account of the operation of the Clause 3(d)(1)(i) of Notification No. 52/2003, dated 31-3-2003, the petitioner came under a liability. It is true that this notification was later amended on 25-5-2015 vide Notification....