Page 119 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

2020 ] DLF UTILITIES LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 301

from a Domestic Tariff Area qualifies as an “export” therefore, a supplier in
DTA is not only entitled to exports benefits under Foreign Trade Policy in
terms of Rule 23 of Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006 but also entitled to
clear the goods under bond or claim rebate of tax/duty paid by it in terms of
Rule 30 ibid. - However, procurement of HSD by petitioner from IOCL not an
“import” within the meaning of Section 2(o) Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 -
Procurement of HSD Oil from the IOCL by petitioners purportedly being in
terms of Section 26(1)(c) ibid, Developers/Co-Developers like petitioner enti-
tled to exemption from duty of Excise on goods brought from Domestic Tariff
Area to a Special Economic Zone or Unit to carry on authorized operations -
Demand cannot be raised for Customs duty and interest thereon on the Excise
duty foregone by IOCL at the time of clearance of HSD from its facto-
ry/refinery to the petitioner under Section 28 or 28AA of Customs Act, 1962.
[paras 22, 26, 33, 39, 41, 42, 49, 65, 66]
Exemption withdrawal and its reinstitution - Effect - 2012 Guidelines
dated 21-3-2012 which was withdrawn vide impugned 2015 Guidelines dated
6-4-2015 has later reintroduced the same content vide 2016 Guideline dated
16-9-2016 with the modifications - However, mere withdrawal of the 2012
Guideline vide the impugned Guideline of 2015 not alters the position under
Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 in view of the consistent policy of Govern-
ment to allow procurement of goods from 2012 vide 2012 Guidelines dated 21-
3-2012 and thereafter 2016 Guidelines dated 16-9-2016 - Impugned Guideline
of 2015 is neither sustainable nor enforceable against the petitioners. [paras 58,
74]
Petitions allowed
CASES CITED
Collector v. Wood Craft Products Ltd. — 1995 (77) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.) — Relied on ........................... [Para 68]
Gmr Aerospace Engineering Limited v. Union of India — 2019 (31) G.S.T.L. 596 (A.P.)
— Referred ....................................................................................................................................... [Para 14]
Jindal Stainless Ltd. v. Union of India — 2017 (51) S.T.R. 130 (Del.) — Referred ........................... [Para 14]
Mahavir Prasad — (1999) 8 SCC 266 — Referred ................................................................................. [Para 14]
W.P.I.L. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2005 (181) E.L.T. 359 (S.C.) — Relied on ..................................... [Para 67]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Raghavan Ramabadran and D. Santhana Go-
palan for Lakshmikumaran Association, for the Peti-
tioner.
S/Shri Madana Gopal, CGSC and T. Pramod
Kumar Chopda, Standing Counsel, for the
Respondent.
[Order]. - By this common order both the writ petitions are being dis-
posed.
2. In W.P. No. 25837 of 2016 the petitioner has challenged the im-
pugned Guideline dated 6-4-2015 bearing Reference No. P.613/2006-SEZ of the
1st respondent. The impugned guidelines seeks to restore earlier Guideline dated
27-2-2009 bearing reference P.6/2003-SEZ of the 1st respondent. As a result of the
impugned Guideline, the petitioner was required to procure High-Speed Diesel
Oil (HSD) on payment of Excise duty during the period in dispute between 1-4-
2015 and 15-2-2016.
3. Since the petitioner had procured HSD Oil from Indian Oil Corpora-
tion Ltd. (IOCL) without payment of Excise duty between 1-4-2015 and 3-10-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  119