Page 136 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

470 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

2020 (373) E.L.T. 470 (Mad.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dr. Anita Sumanth, J.
MANALI PETROCHEMICAL LIMITED
Versus
ADDITIONAL DGFT, NEW DELHI
ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE,
NEW DELHI
ADDITIONAL DGFT, NEW DELHI
W.P. No. 23194 of 2009, decided on 16-9-2019
EXIM Policy - Deemed Exports - Refund of terminal excise duty - Re-
jection of refund claim for commodity entitled for exemption from duty -
HELD : There are several situation where duel reliefs extended to assessee,
both of exemption as well as of refund - In case where both reliefs available,
option to select relief vests with assessee - Said position no longer res integra -
No merit in stand of revenue - Section 25 of Customs Act, 1962. [para 8]
Writ Petition - Maintainability of - Alternate remedy, availability of -
Rejection of claim for refund of terminal excise duty on account of lack of en-
abling provision under para 8.3(c) of Foreign Trade Policy - Revenue alleging
impugned order subject to revision in terms of Regulation 16 of Foreign Trade
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 - HELD : Since issue arising for con-
sideration squarely covered by H.C.L. Limited [2001 (130) E.L.T. 405] and con-
sistently by Court, no reason to relegate petitioner to alternate statutory reme-
dy - Article 226 of Constitution of India. [para 9]
Petition allowed
CASES CITED
Agnice Fire Protection Limited v. Additional General of Foreign Trade — 2019 (5) TMI 86
— Followed ........................................................................................................................................ [Para 9]
H.C.L. Ltd. v. Collector — 2001 (130) E.L.T. 405 (S.C.) — Relied on .............................................. [Paras 8, 9]
Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — 2017 (346) E.L.T. 12 (Mad.) — Followed .................. [Para 9]
Same Deutz-Fahr India (P) Ltd. v. Union of India — 2017 (12) TMI 1114 —
Followed ............................................................................................................................................. [Para 9]
REPRESENTED BY : Ms. P. Jayalakshmi, for the Petitioner.
Dr. G. Babu, Central Government Standing Counsel,
for the Respondent.
[Order]. - The petitioner has challenged an order dated 23-9-2009 passed
by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade (in short R1) rejecting its
claim for refund of terminal Excise duty paid and confirming the order passed by
the 2nd respondent, the Zonal Joint Director General of Foreign Trade (R2).
2. The petitioner was awarded a contract for supply of 400 Metric
Tonnes of Composite Polyol - 78 for onward supply to Oil and Natural Gas
Commission, against its purchase order. The supply was in connection with pe-
troleum operations undertaken under petroleum exploration licenses/mining
leases and were conducted on international competitive bidding, in line with the
provisions of paragraph 8.2(f) and 8.4.4(iii) of the Foreign Trade Policy (in short
FTP) stating as follows :

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  136