Page 106 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

640 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

fied goods/raw material permitted under the Advance Authorization required
for manufacture of the said Soya Long Oil Alkyd Resin to be supplied to SEZ
Unit. The petitioner has also stated that after completion of export against Ad-
vance Authorizations, the exporter is required to get the same discharged/closed
by submitting relevant document as proof of export. The petitioners have further
stated that they approached the Regional Office of Director General of Foreign
Trade to ascertain the document, which are required to be submitted for dis-
charge of export obligation and closure of the Advance Authorizations and at
that point of time, they came to know that one of the documents required for
proof of export, is “Bill of Export”.
5. The petitioners’ contention is that they were not aware about such a
requirement and did not prepare the “Bills of Export” at the time of supply of
goods made to SEZ Unit, and therefore, they approached the Officer-in-Charge
of the SEZ Unit with a request to provide necessary Bills of Export against those
supply made by them. However, the SEZ authorities have refused to do so stat-
ing that Bills of Export cannot be provided at a later date after the exports have
been done.
6. The petitioner have further stated that in a case of export relating to
M/s. Saint Gobain Glass India Limited, the requirement of preparation of Bill of
Export for the goods supplied to SEZ Unit was waived and the closure of Ad-
vance Authorizations have been allowed on the basis of tax invoices. The peti-
tioners have further stated that the petitioner/Company requested the Policy
Relaxation Committee to waive the condition of preparation of Bill of Export for
the supplies made by them to SEZ Unit. The petitioners also requested the SEZ
Unit to issue necessary certificate confirming that goods supplied by the peti-
tioners under the cover of specified tax invoices and ARE-Is were re-
ceived/admitted by the respective units of the SEZ, however, the SEZ authorities
have declined to issue any such certificate.
7. The petitioner, thereafter, vide letters dated 7-2-2018 and 2-4-2018,
approached the PRC along with relevant documents, except Bills of Export, in
support of the evidence that goods were supplied to SEZ Unit and request was
made for condoning the procedure of lapse for non-preparation and filing of Bills
of Export. The request of the petitioners was turned down and by the PRC on 11-
9-2019 and the petitioner again made a detailed representation on 12-1-2019 and
the same has also been turned down. The petitioners’ contention is that the PRC
has wrongly rejected the request of the petitioners for conditions of generating
Bills of Export against the supply of the goods to SEZ Unit and there cannot be
any levy of tax upon the petitioners as the petitioners have imported raw materi-
al (duty free) and it was consumed in manufacturing of goods exported and the
manufactured product was received by the importer (Unit of Special Economic
Zone, Dahej).
8. The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :-
(i) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare the rejection of appli-
cation for condonation/relaxation of the procedural lapse of non-
generation and filing of Bills of Export against the supply of goods
made to SEZ Units as arbitrary and discriminative;
(ii) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a
Writ in the nature of Certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned com-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  106