Page 186 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

72 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

favour only qua a part of the reliefs prayed for and not in the remaining part and
hence, the petitioners cannot now question the decision. Referring to the state-
ment of benefit availed by the petitioners dated 4-9-2015, it was submitted that
the resultant effect of the relief granted would amount to grant of double benefit
to the petitioner. It was submitted that the petitioners having claimed certain re-
liefs before this Court and this Court having not granted the same, by virtue of a
subsequent petition, the petitioners are not entitled to claim the reliefs which
were not granted in the earlier petition and that the petition being devoid of any
merit, deserves to be dismissed.
7. Ms. Avani Mehta, Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respond-
ent No. 5, submitted that what the petitioner claims is parity with import of elec-
tricity from Nepal and Bhutan. It was submitted that factually, the electricity
produced by the petitioner is being majorly sent to Northern India and Gujarat.
It was submitted that the petitioner is governed by the provisions of the SEZ Act
and that the exemptions granted to SEZ units and developers are under sub-
section (2) of Section 26 of the SEZ Act and that the petitioner being governed by
the SEZ Act, cannot claim any benefit under the Customs Act. It was submitted
that reference to the Customs Act is only for the purpose of quantification and
not for exemption.
7.1 Reference was made to Section 49 of the SEZ Act, which provides
that the Central Government may, by notification, direct that any of the provi-
sions of that Act (other than Sections 54 to 56) or any other Central Act or any
rules or regulations made thereunder or any notification or order issued or direc-
tion given thereunder (other than the provisions relating to making of the rules
or regulations) specified in the notification - (a) shall not apply to a Special Eco-
nomic Zone or a class of Special Economic Zones or all Special Economic Zones;
or (b) shall apply to Special Economic Zone or a class of Special Economic Zones
or all Special Economic Zones only with such exception, modification and adap-
tation, as may be specified in the notification.
7.2 It was submitted that in view of the overriding effect of Section 51
of the SEZ Act, benefit of the provisions of the Customs Act, including the bene-
fit of exemption under Section 25 thereof, cannot be claimed by the petitioners.
Reference was made to Section 55(2)(h) of the SEZ Act, which empowers the
Central Government to frame rules providing the terms, conditions and limita-
tions subject to which the goods or services exported out of, or imported into, or
procured from the Domestic Tariff Area to, a Special Economic Zone, be exempt
from payment of taxes, duties, or cess under Section 7. It was submitted that Rule
47(3) of the SEZ Rules, which provides that surplus power generated in a Special
Economic Zone Developer’s Power Plant in the SEZ or Unit’s captive power
plant or diesel generating set may be transferred to Domestic Tariff Area on
payment of duty on consumables and raw materials used for generation of pow-
er subject to the conditions stipulated thereunder, has been been kept in abey-
ance for a period of five years and the petitioners have enjoyed the benefit there-
of. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim double benefit, viz., due to Rule 47(3)
of the SEZ Rules, having been kept in abeyance as well as exemption from pay-
ment of Customs duty.
7.3 It was, accordingly, urged that the petitioners are not entitled to the
reliefs prayed for in the petition and that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
8. In rejoinder, Mr. Kamal Trivedi, Learned Counsel for the petitioners

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  234