2025 (11) TMI 1548

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....IVIL APPLICATION NO. 12314 of 2016, R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12315 of 2016, R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6900 of 2021, R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3789 of 2025, R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3793 of 2025, R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3812 of 2025, R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3994 of 2025, R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4028 of 2025, R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4030 of 2025, R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4042 of 2025, R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4368 of 2025, R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4369 of 2025, R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4370 of 2025, R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4371 of 2025, R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4381 of 2025, R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4395 of 2025. Appearance: For the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2: Mr S.N. Soparkar, Senior Advocate With Mr Hasit Dave (1321). For the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3: Mr CB Gupta (1685). COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA) 1. At the outset, learned advocates appearing for the respective parties have submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court dated 21.09.2023 passed in Special Civil Application No.3631 of 2013 and allied ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....31 of 2013 and allied matters, wherein the Coordinate Bench has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Arvind Limited Vs. Union of India, [2014 (300) ELT 481 (Guj.)], which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Arvind Limited, [2017 (352) ELT A21 (SC)]. 6. The relevant observations of the Division Bench are as under : - "[11] Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the issue with regard to availing the benefit is no more re integra and the petitioner cannot be denied the claim of rebate on the ground that the payment of duty was at the will of the assessee as per the beneficial Notification for export of the goods. The export rebate is permissible as the petitioner has paid duty at the time of export, as final products manufactured by the petitioner were exempted from payment of duty by Notification No. 29/2004-CE as amended by Notification No. 58/2008-CE. However, the petitioner availed the benefit of concessional rate of duty under the Notification No. 59/2008-CE, which exempted the goods manufactured by the petiti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessee cannot be compared with other type of cases of refund/rebate of duty. Admittedly, when the petitioner was given exemption from payment of whole of the duty and the petitioner if had paid duty at the time of exporting the goods, there is no reason why it should be denied the rebate claimed which otherwise the petitioner is found entitled to. We are not going into the larger issues initially argued before us as subsequently the Revenue has substantially admitted the claim of rebate of excise duty and has not resisted in substance such claim of rebate." [12] The Hon'ble Supreme Court has affirmed the above judgement of this Court as stated hereinabove, by dismissing the Special Leave to Petition filed by the Union of India reported in 2017 (352) ELT A21 (SC), wherein it is held that the benefit of export rebate could not be denied to the exporter who paid duty on the exported product despite same being fully exempted under Notification No. 29/2004 as amended by Notification No. 59/2008-CE. [13] The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of H.C.L. Limited vs. Collector of Customs, New Delhi reported in 2001 (130) ELT 405 (SC), has held that as per the order of the Ho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h procedure, upon fulfillment of which, the rebate shall be granted. Thus, on a plain reading Rule 18 provides a complete code by itself in relation to rebate of duty that an exporter can claim on export of goods. * * * 14. There is one more reason. As can be seen from reading of Sub-rule (1) and Rule (2) of Rule 19 of the Rules the opening portion grants an option to the exporter by virtue of the language used. In Sub-rule (1) it is stated Any excisable goods may be exported, and in Sub-rule (2) it is stated Any material may be removed. Therefore, the exporter has an option to export the final products without payment of duty or use inputs which are procured without payment of duty in the manufacture or processing of goods which are to be exported. At the other end, the later portion of Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 19 of the Rules grants discretion to the Commissioner to approve the option that is exercised by an exporter by use of the phrase "as may be approved". If the interpretation which is placed on the provision by the respondent authorities by issuance of impugned Notification is accepted, it would not only take away the option granted to the exporter but....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lying in CENVAT account of the petitioner before 10.07.2017 was to be carried forward in fresh account of CENVAT account after appointed day i.e. 01.07.2017. 12. We are therefore, of the considered view that the respondent No. 2 ought to have directed the sanctioning Authority to refund the duty of the amount in cash instead of credit in the CANVAT account. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2 in No. 24/2017-CX(WZ)/ASRA/Mumbai dated 27.12.2017 is partly modified to the extent that instead of crediting the duty in the CENVAT account of the petitioner, the sanctioning Authority is directed to refund the amount in cash to the petitioner." [17] Considering the above observations made by the Division Bench of this Court, the respondents are directed to refund the amount payable to the petitioners with interest in cash instead of credit in the Electronic Credit Ledger account as no CENVAT credit account exists as on date with efiect from 1st July 2017. [18] All the petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ithin a period of four months from the date of receipt of the said order. When the statute clearly provides that interest shall be payable on the expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application under sub-section (1) of Section 11BB of the Act, merely because this court had stipulated the period within which the concerned respondent should decide the application, the same would not operate in favour of the respondents and against the petitioner and curtail the statutory period prescribed under Section 11BB of the Act. 9. Moreover, it is settled legal position that an interpretation of any provision of law by the Supreme Court is the law of the land and the respondents are duty bound to respect and follow the same. When the Supreme Court way back on 21.10.2011 has, in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India (supra), held that interest shall be payable on the expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application under sub-section (1) of section 11BB of the Act and not on the expiry of the said period from the date on which the order or refund is made, the respondents cannot be heard to contend otherwise. ....