TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 935
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 29 October 1993 passed by the Respondent No.2 whereby the Petitioner's application, for the period 3 July 1989 to 7 May 1991, for refund of Cash Compensatory Scheme (CCS) has been rejected primarily on the ground that 'Castor Oil First Special Grade' cannot be equated as 'Castor Oil Medicinal' for grant of benefit of CCS. Brief facts :- 2. In 1964, the Ministry of Food and Agricultural, Government of India issued a Circular for the purpose of grading Castor Oil as 'Medicinal'. The grading was based upon the test to be conducted, which was known as 'Carbon Disulphide Test'. In 1966, Cash Compensatory Support Scheme was introduc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to be filed, challenging the denial of cash compensatory support scheme to the Petitioner for the period 22 June 1989 to 8 May 1991. 6. Mr Mogre, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that on identical issue the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the Petitioner's own case while dealing with the refund of duty drawback has held that 'Castor Oil First Special' qualifies as 'Castor Oil Medicinal' for the purpose of duty drawback. He submitted that the said decision squarely covers the controversy raised in the present Petition and therefore the Respondents be directed to refund the cash compensatory amount as prayed for. 7. Mr Sharma, learned counsel for the Respondent opposed the petition and submitted that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ck Rules, it is open to the Government to fix the rates of drawback duty. In so far as the Petitioners are concerned the Government by their communication dated 6th December, 1989 in respect of Castor Oil medicinal and/or Castor Oil First Grade had fixed rate for the period 1-6-1989 to 31-5-1990. By a further communication of 6-11-1990 the communication of 6-12-1989 was amended by substituting the description by "Castor Oil medicinal". Thus Castor Oil First Special Grade was excluded. The question that we are called upon to consider is whether it was open to respondents by subsequent communication of 6-11-1990 to amend the communication on 6-12-1989 for the period 1-6-1989 to 31-5-1990. In our opinion the Petitioners had already exported Ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate legislation could not have withdrawn the benefits with retrospective effect. A learned Division Bench of this Court accepted the said contention as unless there be a power to make subordinate legislation with retrospective effect it is not open to an Authority to give retrospective effect to a Notification. This was followed by another Division Bench in Gandhi Sons & Ors., vs. Union of India, 2002 (81) ECC 261 (Bom.) and subsequently reiterated by another judgment in Arviva Industries (I) Ltd. vs. Union of India, 2004 (167) E.L.T. 135 (Bom.). Based on these Authorities it will be clear that once the rates had been fixed in respect of the goods described in the communication it could not have been open to the respondents to retrospective....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th duty drawback rules, but since the controversy is identical to the one which is raised before us, the ratio of the said decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case and, therefore, respondents are not justified in rejecting the application of the Petitioner denying the benefit of Cash Compensatory Support Scheme merely on the ground that 'Castor Oil First Special' is not the same as 'Castor Oil Medicinal' after the introduction of the new test i.e. the TLC test. 14. There is also no dispute that the contracts under which the exports were made by the Petitioner for the period under consideration were executed prior to June 1989. The Petitioner is justified in relying upon the following decisions (i) Union ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has been granted to the goods 'Castor Oil First Special'. If that be so, then we fail to understand as to how the said benefit can be denied for the period 22 June 1989 to 8 May 1991 merely on the ground of change in the test. Therefore looked from any angle, the goods 'Castor Oil Medicinal' and 'Castor Oil First Special' would remain the same although there was a change in the test by Circular dated 23 of June 1989. 17. The Petitioner has also obtained Technical Report by Expert Authorities on whether the 'Castor Oil Medicinal' is different product post the TLC test. The said technical reports given by the experts confirm that the product 'Castor Oil Medicinal' remains the same even after change o....