2025 (12) TMI 1125

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Learned counsel for the parties state that a common judgment and order can dispose of these Petitions. 3. Accordingly, we issue Rule in all these Petitions. We make the Rule returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting of heat exchangers and other allied products. During its business, the Petitioner imported certain raw materials under the advance authorisation, claiming exemption from the payment of basic customs duty and IGST, relying on the customs notifications dated 1 April 2015 and 13 October 2017. 5. The Petitioners contend that this raw material was used to manufacture finished goods, which we....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed the challenge to the 10 October 2021 order. Hence, the present Petitions. 11. During the pendency of these Petitions, this Court, in the case of Hikal Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition No.78 of 2025 decided on 11 September 2025) has held that Rule 96(10) was omitted without making any provisions for saving pending proceedings. Mr Thakar therefore submits that the argument about any alleged breach of Rule 96(10) or invocation of Rule 86(4B) of the CGST Rules would no longer be applicable. Accordingly, he proposes that we set aside the impugned orders of the appellate authority and the adjudicating authority, and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for deciding the Petitioner's refund application dated 20 August ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2022 and 27 March 2023 are set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority i.e. the second Respondent herein to decide afresh the Petitioner's refund application dated 20 August 2021 and show cause notice dated 1 December 2021 after examining the impact of this Court's decision in Hikal Ltd. (supra). 18. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 10 January 2022 and 27 March 2023 and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority i.e. the second Respondent to decide afresh the Petitioner's refund application dated 20 August 2021 and show cause notice dated 1 December 2021 as expeditiously as possible and in any event within six months from the date of uploading of this order. 19. The second Respo....