Page 191 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] ADANI POWER LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 77
payable on similar goods im-
ported in India.”
3. In para 63 (ultimate para), 5th “.... The petitioners are enti- 61
line reads as under : tled for exemption from
“.... The petitioners are entitled payment of customs duty for
for exemption from payment of the period 26-6-2009 onwards
customs duty for the period 26-6- on the electricity cleared to
2009 to 15-9-2010 on the electrici- DTA from SEZ, so long as no
ty cleared to DTA from SEZ.” customs duty is payable on
similar goods imported in In-
dia.”

16. The Division Bench, after hearing the Learned Counsel for the re-
spective parties, passed the following order on the Note for Speaking to the
Minutes :
“Heard Mr. Kamal B. Trivedi, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.
Uday Mr. Joshi for Trivedi & Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners and Mr.
P.Y. Deveshwar for Mr. Devang Vyas, Learned Advocate, for the respond-
ents.
On instructions Mr. Kamal Trivedi, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.
Uday M. Joshi for Trivedi & Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners, states that
he does not want to press this Note for Speaking to Minutes.
Accordingly, this Note for Speaking to Minutes stands dismissed as not
pressed.”
17. Evidently therefore, the Division Bench did not deem it fit to correct
the judgment in the manner suggested, and to grant the wider relief that had
been prayed for in the petition but restricted the period to 26-6-2009 to 15-9-2010.
The petitioners have thereafter thought it fit to accept the decision as it is, and
did not file any review application, nor did they challenge the decision to the
extent the relief prayed for has not been granted. Therefore, though the Court
had discussed various issues and given findings thereon in the body of the
judgment, it did not think it fit to grant any consequential relief, which appears
to be a conscious decision as the Court has not entertained the Note for Speaking
to the Minutes filed by the petitioners pointing out this fact. Now, on the basis of
the findings recorded in the above judgment rendered in Special Civil Applica-
tion No. 3142 of 2010, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the relief which
was not granted in the said writ petition though prayed for.
18. In the opinion of this Court, the Division Bench, in the earlier deci-
sion has consciously restricted the relief granted to the petitioners to the period
from 26-6-2009 to 15-9-2010 for the reason that while holding in favour of the pe-
titioners the Division Bench (in paragraph 23 of the judgment) was of the view
that the provisions of Rule 47(3) of the SEZ Rules are designed to align the power
plants located within SEZ to be at par with power plants located outside SEZ,
both being located within India. Just as MPP imports or procures capital goods
without payment of duty, but pays customs duty or excise duty, on the raw ma-
terial and consumables used to generate electricity so also MPP located within
SEZ imports or procures capital goods without payment of duty on raw materi-
als and consumables to the extent the electricity generated by it is re-
moved/supplied/sold outside SEZ. The Division Bench (in paragraph 37 of the
judgment) has further expressed the view that the impugned notification

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  239