Page 159 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

2020 ] MULTITEX FILTRATION ENGINEERS LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA 69

CASES CITED
Alstom Transport India Ltd. v. Union of India — 2018 (363) E.L.T. 69 (Del.) —
Relied on ..................................................................................................................... [Paras 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 17]
Director General of Foreign Trade v. Kanak Exports — 2015 (326) E.L.T. 26 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 17]
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATIONS CITED
D.G.F.T. Policy Circular No. 16 (RE-2012/2009-14), dated 15-3-2013 ................................ [Paras 5, 6, 7, 11]
D.G.F.T. Policy Circular No. 11/2015-20, dated 23-7-2018 .......................................................... [Paras 2, 15]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Sujit Ghosh, Ms. Mannat Waraich and Tosh-
in Bishnoi, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC with S/Shri Amit Dogra
and Siddharath Singh, Advocates and Ms. Sonu
Bhatnagar, Senior Standing Counsel with Vaibhav
Joshi, Ms. Anushree Narain and Ms. Venus Mehro-
tra, Advocates, for the Respondent.
[Order per : Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral]. - The petitioner aggrieved by the
rejection of its claim of refund of Terminal Excise Duty (‘TED’), has filed the pre-
sent petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia impugning
the said decision, primarily relying upon the decision of this Court in M/s. Alstom
Transport India Limited v. Union of India and Ors., 2018 (363) E.L.T. 69.
2. At the admission stage, prima facie, it appeared to us that the Peti-
tioner’s case is squarely covered by the aforenoted decision and also the policy
Circular No. 11/2015-20, dated 23th July, 2018 issued by Director General of For-
eign Trade. We, accordingly permitted the Respondents’ counsel to take instruc-
tion on this aspect. Today, Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC on instructions states that
petitioner’s claim is distinguishable from the case of M/s. Alstom Transport India
Limited (supra) and opposes the petition. She also states that the respondents
have waived their right to file a counter affidavit. In these circumstances, we
have proceeded to hear the matter on merits. The subject matter of the present
petition is indeed covered by the decision rendered by this Court in M/s. Alstom
Transport India Limited (supra) for the reasons discussed and deliberated hereinaf-
ter. Nevertheless, we have independently examined the facts of the case.
3. Briefly stated, the petitioner - M/s. Multitex Filtration Engineers
Limited, holding excise registration, is a company inter alia engaged in the busi-
ness of manufacturing industrial filtration equipment for oil, gas, etc. It was ap-
pointed as sub-contractor to supply equipment to power generating companies
for the setting up of various power projects. In relation to the purchase orders
placed by EPC Contractors - BHEL Noida, Lanco Infratech, Gurgaon, Oil India
Limited and BHEL Hyderabad, the Petitioner supplied equipment in the nature
of capital goods and spares, during the period of 15th December, 2009 to 10th
February, 2011, in the capacity of a sub-contractor inter alia for setting up of Pow-
er Projects. It duly discharged excise duty upon clearance of the said goods.
Thereafter, as an eligible claimant, petitioner sought to take benefit in terms of
para 8.3(c) read with 8.4.4(iv) under Chapter 8 of the Foreign Trade Policy (here-
inafter ‘FTP’) and submitted five applications for refund of TED, all dated 28th
February, 2014 before Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, IP Estate,
New Delhi. The details of such applications are as follows :

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  159