Page 225 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

2020 ] ABB INDIA LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 207

3. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted the applications before the re-
spondent No. 4 in terms of Para 2.5 of the Foreign Trade Policy, seeking condo-
nation of the procedural lapse of non-submission of bills of export for supply to
SEZ and for redemption of advance authorization by considering the ARE-1s and
the ‘Certificate of Receipt of Supply’ endorsed by the authorized officer, Customs
at the SEZ unit. The said applications came to be rejected by the respondent No.
4 vide minutes of PRC Meeting No. 23/AM 16, dated 23-2-2016 on the ground
that the bill of export is mandatory document for supply of goods to SEZ and
that ARE-1s filed for supply of goods to SEZ does not contain the reference of
advance authorization number and date. Aggrieved by the said decision of the
respondent No. 4, the petitioner filed applications for review in terms of Para
2.59 of the Foreign Trade Policy. Respondent No. 4 vide decision taken during
the PRC Meeting No. 22/AM 18, dated 24-10-2017, rejected the prayer of the peti-
tioner to condone the procedural lapse for non-submission of bill of export with
regard to clearance to SEZ. Hence, these writ petitions.
4. Learned Counsel Sri. G. Shivadass appearing for the petitioner
would contend that they have fulfilled the export obligation while supplying
goods to the SEZ unit. Though the supply of goods to SEZ unit was effected
without filing the bill of export, the same is duly proved by the ARE-1s duly en-
dorsed by the authorized officer, Customs at the SEZ unit. Further, the petitioner
has received a ‘Certificate of Receipt of Supply’ against each of the three advance
authorizations specifying the details of the purchase order number placed on the
petitioner, advance authorizations number and date, ARE-1, export invoice,
product details etc., from the SEZ which is duly endorsed by the authorized of-
ficer, SEZ unit. It is submitted that the fact of use of inputs imported against the
advance authorization for use in the manufacture and supply of finished goods
to the SEZ unit is not disputed and stands proved by the alternative documents
submitted by the petitioner thus meriting redemption of advance authorization.
5. The petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High
Court of Bombay, in the case of M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. UOI & Others, report-
ed in 2017-TIOL-2291-HC-MUM-CUS = 2018 (360) E.L.T. 289 (Bom.) wherein re-
demption of advance authorization was permitted on the basis of ARE-1s duly
endorsed by the authorized officer Customs, SEZ unit, despite the assessee fail-
ing to submit bills of export for supplies made to SEZ. Learned Counsel mainly
placing reliance on the Consumption certificate/‘Certificate of Receipt of Supply’
which co-relates the advance authorization license numbers with ARE-1s form
numbers and date etc., argued that the RA as well as PRC failed to appreciate the
Consumption Certificate in a right perspective.
6. Learned Counsel Sri. Jeevan J. Neeralagi, appearing for the respond-
ents, supporting the impugned orders would submit that petitioner has not men-
tioned authorization number in ARE-1s. No other documents to prove the actual
consumption of duty vis-à-vis the resultant products exported towards discharge
of export obligation against the authorization was made available as the policy
insisting that while removing the goods from the factory for export purpose, the
exporter should indicate authorization number in the export documents. The
same being not complied with, the petitioner’s requests for condonation of the
procedural lapse in obtaining the bill of export was rejected and the same cannot
be faulted with. Thus, it is submitted that the denial of benefit of redemption was
not merely for want of bill of export but not mentioning the authorization num-
ber in the ARE-1s.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  225