Page 240 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

222 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

(h) Supply of marine freight containers by 100% EOU (Domestic
freight containers-manufacturers) provided said containers
are exported out of India within 6 months or such further pe-
riod as permitted by customs;
(i) Supply to projects funded by UN Agencies; and
(j) Supply of goods to nuclear power projects through competi-
tive bidding as opposed to ICB.
Benefits of deemed exports shall be available under paragraphs (d), (e), (f)
and (g) only if the supply is made under procedure of ICB.
However, in regard to mega power projects, the requirement of ICB would
not be mandatory, if the requisite quantum of power has been tied up
through tariff based competitive bidding or if the project has been awarded
through tariff based competitive bidding.
8.3 Benefits for Deemed Exports. - Deemed exports shall be eligible for
any/all of following Exports benefits in respect of manufacture and supply
of goods qualifying as deemed exports subject to terms and conditions as in
HBP v1 :-
(a) Advance Authorisation/Advance Authorisation for annual
requirement DFIA.
(b) Deemed Export Drawback.
(c) Exemption from terminal excise duty where supplies are
made against ICB. In other cases, refund of terminal excise du-
ty will be given. Exemption from TED shall also be available
for supplies made by an Advance Authorisation holder to a
manufacturer holding another Advance Authorization if such
manufacturer, in turn, supplies the product(s) to an ultimate
exporter.
8.4.3 In respect of supplies made under paragraph 8.2(c) of FTP, supplier
shall be entitled to the benefits listed in paragraphs 8.3(a), (b) and (c) of the
Policy, whichever is applicable.
7. The judgment in Kandoi Metal’s (supra) was concerned with the clari-
fication given by the Policy Interpretation Committee’s decision of 4-12-2012
which stated that refund of Cenvat credit provisions were available under Cen-
tral Excise Act and the Rules which should be availed of rather claiming refund.
8. In the present case too, DGFT has rejected the petitioner’s claim on
the ground that the benefit of refund is available to it under the provisions of
Central Excise Act and Rules. Clearly this premise is erroneous. In the event,
there is no dispute - as it appears to be having regard to the pleadings - that the
supplies were made to EOU/EHTP/STP/BTP (categorically spelt out in 8.2).
Benefit of deemed export under para 8.3 i.e. advance authorization [clause (a)],
deemed export drawback [clause (b)] or exemption from TED - in case of sup-
plies made against International Competitive Bidding (ICB) or in other case of
refund of TED. Clause (c) accrues to the concerned party i.e. supplier to
EOU/STP. In this case, the petitioner’s primary claim is that it is the supplier to
such EOUs and that such supplies were made before 15-3-2013. This clear aspect
has been completely overlooked and lost sight off by the respondent DGFT,
which appears to initially reject the claim on the ground that the benefit the peti-
tioners seeks entitlement of, was inadmissible because Central Excise benefit
could be claimed. As is evident from the record, Central Excise officials when

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  240