/** * The main template file * * This is the most generic template file in a WordPress theme * and one of the two required files for a theme (the other being style.css). * It is used to display a page when nothing more specific matches a query. * E.g., it puts together the home page when no home.php file exists. * * @link https://developer.wordpress.org/themes/basics/template-hierarchy/ * * @package WordPress * @subpackage Tally * @since 1.0.0 */ ?>
The Supreme Court of India in the matter of Sandoz Private Limited v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No. 3358 of 2020 dated January 4, 2020] upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court that Export Oriented Unit (“EOU”) is not entitled to claim refund of Terminal Excise Duty (“TED”) on its own, however, adds a caveat that EOU may avail of the entitlements of Domestic Tariff Area (“DTA”) supplier specified in Chapter 8 of Foreign Trade Policy (“FTP”) on condition that it will not pass on that benefit back to DTA supplier later on.
M/s Sandoz Private Limited (“the Appellant”) claims to be hundred per cent EOU engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 30 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
The Appellant had applied for refund from TED in respect of excisable goods procured from its unit in DTA, as it did in the past and was granted refund from time to time between 2006 and 2012. The instant refund application was disallowed, which decision is the subject matter of appeal in the present case. It is known that TED was paid by the DTA Unit from where the goods in question were procured or supplied to the Appellant for its EOU during the relevant period.
Circular bearing No.16 (RE2012/200914) dated March 15, 2013 ("the Circular”), was issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade ("DGFT”) to clarify that no refund of TED should be provided by the Office of DGFT/Development Commissioners, as supplies made by DTA Unit to EOU are ab initio exempted from payment of excise duty. The Development Commissioner eventually rejected the refund claim set forth by the Appellant and informed the Appellant in that regard vide letter dated April 1, 2013.
The Appellant challenged the legality and validity of the Circular issued by DGFT and the rejection of the refund application.
Challenged the legality and validity of the Circular issued by DGFT and the rejection of the refund application.
The Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3358 of 2020 dated January 4, 2020, held as under:
(Author can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
The CESTAT, New Delhi in the matter of M/s BBM Impex Pvt. Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) [Customs Early Hearing Application No.50414 of 2022 with Customs Appeal No. 51662 of
The CESTAT, New Delhi in the matter of M/s Prem Kumar Ojha v. Commissioner of Customs-Jaipur I [Customs Miscellaneous Application No. 50245 of 2022 dated July 04, 2022] held that, in view
The CESTAT, New Delhi in the matter of M/s Shri Shyam Ingot & Castings Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise [Excise Appeal No. 52550 of 2019-SM dated August 08, 2022] held
The CESTAT, Chennai in the matter of M/s. SK Enterprises v The Commissioner of Customs [CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 40017 of 2022 dated June 24, 2022] set aside and held that the revaluation of the goods
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in C.C.E. AND S.T., Surat I v. Bilfinder Neo Structo Construction Ltd. Civil Appeal No(s).674/2021 dated November 29, 2021] issued directives for the adoption