Page 105 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

2020 ] MPD INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 639

ficer-in-Charge of SEZ Unit refusing to heed to request to provide necessary
Bills of Export against those supply stating that Bills of Export could not be
provided at a later date after exports have been done - Policy Relaxation
Committee also refusing to waive condition of preparation of Bill of Export for
the supplies made by assessee to SEZ Unit - On a writ petition - HELD : As-
sessee failed to comply with requirements under relevant rules and also failed
to impleaded SEZ Unit as party to proceedings - SEZ unit was necessary party
as it could answer as to whether goods were received at SEZ unit - Assessee
had not complied with various statutory provisions by not furnishing Bill of
Exports - Condition of producing Bill of Export, a necessary condition and
cannot be waived unless and until proved otherwise that the goods were ex-
ported by exporter - Proof required for purpose was “Bill of Export” and it was
not submitted by assessee - Whether goods were supplied to SEZ Unit could
be looked into after assessee files reply to Department in respect of letters is-
sued to it - These being purely questions of fact could be looked into by com-
petent authority - Section 30 of Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 - Rule 30(3)
of Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006. [paras 15, 20, 21]
Petition dismissed
CASES CITED
Larsen & Toubro Limited v. Union of India — 2018 (360) E.L.T. 289 (Bom.)
— Distinguished ............................................................................................................. [Paras 16, 19, 20]
Uttar Pradesh v. Rekha Rani — (2011) 11 SCC 441 — Referred ........................................................ [Para 20]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri R.T. Thanevala with Paritosh Seth, Counsels,
for the Petitioner.
Shri Prasanna Prasad, Counsel, for the Respondent.
[Order per : S.C. Sharma, J.]. - Shri R.T. Thanevala along with Shri Pari-
tosh Seth, Learned Counsels for the petitioners.
Shri Prasanna Prasad, Learned Counsel for the Respondent(s).
Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the
present cases, these writ petitions were analogously heard and by a common or-
der, they are being disposed of by this Court. Facts of the Writ Petition No.
18142/2019 are narrated hereunder.
The petitioners before this Court have filed this present petition being
aggrieved by the orders dated 11-9-2018 and 20-11-2018 passed by the Policy Re-
laxation Committee, Directorate General of Foreign Trade. The petitioners’ con-
tention is that the petitioner No. 1 is Private Limited Company and the petitioner
No. 2 is the Director of petitioner No. 1/Company.
2. It has been stated by the petitioners that the petitioners have received
purchase order from M/s. DIC Fine Chemical Private Limited, a SEZ Unit, situ-
ated in Dahej, Special Economic Zone, Tai Vagare, District - Bharuch, Gujarat for
supply of Soya Long Oil Alkyd Resin falling under Tariff Item No. 3907 50 00 of
the Schedule-II to CETA, 1985.
3. Based upon the purchase order received for supply of the aforesaid
goods to SEZ Unit, which is treated at par with export, the petitioners have ap-
plied to DGFT for issuance of Advance Licences/Authorizations, and according-
ly, five Advance Authorizations were issued by the Office of Joint Director Gen-
eral of Foreign Trade, Bhopal.
4. The petitioner have further stated that they have imported the speci-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  105