Page 95 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

2020 ] UNION OF INDIA v. E.I. DUPOINT INDIA 629

10. In these circumstances, Respondent No. 1 moved this Court, by
way of WP (C) 1663/2012, challenging the deliberations and decision taken by
the PIC, in its afore-extracted minutes dated 27th December, 2011, as well as the
communication dated 22nd April, 2009, whereby the claim, of Respondent No. 1, to
the benefit of the SFIS, was rejected.
11. The said W.P. (C) 1663/2012, preferred by Respondent No. 1, was
tagged with two other writ petitions, namely, W.P. (C) 7011/2012 [2015 (320)
E.L.T. 781 (Del.)] (M/s. Yum Restaurants (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. U.O.I.) and W.P. (C)
6800/2013 (Nokia Solutions and Networks India Pvt. Ltd. v. U.O.I.).
12. There was, however, one crucial distinguishing feature, in the case
of Respondent No. 1, vis-à-vis, the cases of Yum Restaurants (I) Pvt. Ltd. and Nokia
Solutions and Networks India Pvt. Ltd.
13. While M/s. Yum Restaurants (I) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Nokia Solutions
and Networks India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) dealt with entitlement to the benefits of SFIS,
under the FTP 2009-2014, the case of Respondent No. 1 was with respect to the
FTP 2004-2009.
14. The Learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated 27th January, 2015
(which forms subject matter of challenge in LPA 770/2015) allowed all the writ
petitions, including WP (C) 1663/2012, holding that SFIS benefits were available to all
the petitioners before him i.e. that the said benefits available under the FTP 2004-
2009 as well as under the FTP 2009-2014.
15. We are not concerned, in these appeals, with the availability, or
otherwise, of SFIS benefits under the FTP 2009-2014, as the case of Respondent No. 1
is limited to the FTP 2004-2009. In fact, the entitlement of Yum Restaurants (I) Pvt.
Ltd. to SFIS benefits, under the FTP 2009-2014, forms subject-matter of a separate
challenge, at the instance of the appellant, with which we need not engage our-
selves.
16. Insofar as Respondent No. 1 is concerned, certain capital goods
were imported by Respondent No. 1, claiming the benefits of SFIS, on which
Customs duty, without availing the said SFIS benefit, was deposited by Re-
spondent No. 1. Subsequently, in view of the judgment, dated 27th January, 2015
supra, of the Learned Single Judge, in WP (C) 1663/2012, Respondent No. 1
claimed refund of the duty, deposited by it, as the Learned Single Judge had held
Respondent No. 1 to be entitled to the benefits of the SFIS, under the FTP 2004-
2009.
17. As the request of Respondent No. 1, for refund of the duty deposit-
ed by it, did not meet with any favourable response, Respondent No. 1 moved
this Court, by way of WP(C) 6440 /2015.
18. Vide judgment dated 14th January, 2019, the Learned Single Judge
has, following the earlier judgment dated 27th January, 2015, in WP(C)
1663/2012 supra, allowed WP(C) 6440/2015.
19. It is noted, in the said judgment, that the only ground, ventilated by
the appellant, was that the judgment dated 27th January, 2015, qua M/s. Yum Res-
taurants (I) Pvt. Ltd., was under challenge before a Division Bench of this Court.
The Learned Single Judge noted, correctly, however, that the said challenge per-
tained to the entitlement, to the benefits of SFIS, under the FTP 2009-2014, and
not under the FTP 2004-2009, with which Respondent No. 1 was conerned.
20. These two appeals, at the instance of the Union of India and the Di-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  95