Page 168 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

78 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

Corporation. Thus, the respondent authorities, in the opinion of The Court,
proceeded on an entirely erroneous premise.
xxx xxx xxx
22. For a fuller appreciation of the issue, it was necessary for the respond-
ent authorities to determine whether under the relevant central excise noti-
fication, the goods were (or were not) exempt, or were exempt subject to
any condition. Per se exemption, (or to put it, in the language of the re-
spondent’s pleadings and notifications, ab initio exemption) could only
mean unconditional exemption from payment of duty. In the present case, a
combined reading of the central excise exemption notification and the cus-
toms duty exemption notification made it clear that such unconditional ex-
emption was not extended to the goods. Rather, unconditional exemption
was given only to goods supplied under contracts funded to the Delhi Met-
ro Rail Corporation. This meant that the goods in question, supplied by the
petitioner were dutiable. Clearly, therefore it was entitled to terminal excise
duty refund, on a plain analysis of Para 8.3 of FTP 2009- 2014.”
18. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders/letters denying re-
fund of TED are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to process peti-
tioner’s claim for TED refund in respect of the applications enumerated in para-
graph 3 of this order and release the amounts which they are entitled to in re-
spect of the supplies made hereunder within a period of eight weeks from today.
19. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms and the pending ap-
plication accordingly stands disposed of.
_______

2020 (373) E.L.T. 78 (Mad.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dr. Vineet Kothari and R. Suresh Kumar, JJ.
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI
Versus
FREIGHT FIELD (MADRAS) PVT. LTD.
C.M.A. No. 1746 of 2019, decided on 13-3-2020
1
Appeal by Department to Appellate Tribunal in Customs House
Agents cases - Maintainability/Jurisdiction - Whether remedy of appeal avail-
able with revenue under Section 129A of Customs Act, 1962, against decision
under Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 - HELD : Board
while making regulation, under Section 146(2) ibid clarified that certain obli-
gations ought to be scrupulously followed or to be fulfilled by licensee as
enumerated under Regulation 13 ibid and if any violation noticed, even
though licence not revoked in between, at time of renewal, same to have bear-
ing and such licensee would not be or may not be eligible to get renewal - Or-
der passed under Regulation 22(7) ibid only based on adjudication therefore
same can only be construed as adjudicative order and not as administrative
order - Such orders can be very well fit in situation mentioned under im-
pugned Section 129A ibid where Sections 129A(1)(a) to 129A(d) ibid making it
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from Final Order No. 41695/2018, dated 31-5-2018 by CESTAT, Chennai.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  168