Page 48 - GSTL_16 April 2020_Vol 35_Part 3

262 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
always the intention of the Central Government to exempt imports of capital goods under
the EPCG Scheme from payment of additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tar-
iff Act. Notification No. 79/2017, dated 13th October, 2017, therefore, has to be read as
clarificatory or curative in nature, inasmuch as, otherwise it would leave as whole class of
importers who had imported capital goods, uncovered during the period 1-7-2017 to 13-
10-2017, allowing the department to levy additional duty under sub-sections (7) and (9)
of the Customs Tariff Act on such imports, despite the fact that the Foreign Trade Policy
2015-2020 envisages imports under the EPCG Scheme at zero customs duty. [paras 12,
13, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42]
Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme - Exemption from payment
of Customs duty under Scheme not an exemption simpliciter - Authorisation
holder having corresponding obligation to export goods equivalent to six
times duty saved on import of such capital goods. [para 10]
Petition allowed
CASES CITED
Director General of Foreign Trade v. Kanak Exports
— 2015 (326) E.L.T. 26 (S.C.) — Distinguished ............................................................... [Paras 4.7, 41]
Kasinka Trading v. Union of India — 1994 (74) E.L.T. 782 (S.C.) — Distinguished ...... [Paras 4.5, 39, 41]
MRF Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Sales Tax
— 2006 (206) E.L.T. 6 (S.C.) — Referred .............................................................................. [Paras 3.8, 32]
Pournami Oil Mills v. State of Kerala — 1987 (27) E.L.T. 594 (S.C.) — Referred ............................ [Para 39]
Prashanti Medical Services and Research Foundation v. Union of India
— Special Civil Application No. 7558 of 2017, decided on 14-9-2017
by Gujarat High Court — Referred ............................................................................................ [Para 4.8]
Ralson (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2015 (319) E.L.T. 234 (S.C.) — Referred ............. [Paras 3.6, 36, 37]
Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. v. Union of India
— 2018 (360) E.L.T. 483 (Guj.) — Referred .................................................................. [Paras 3.2, 3.7, 37]
Shri Bakul Oil Industries v. State of Gujarat — 1987 (27) E.L.T. 572 (S.C.) — Referred................. [Para 39]
State of Bihar v. Suprabhat Steel Ltd. — (1999) 1 SCC 31 — Referred ...................................... [Paras 3.3, 30]
State of Jharkhand v. Tata Cummins Ltd. — (2006) 4 SCC 57 — Referred .............................. [Paras 3.4, 33]
W.P.I.L. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2005 (181) E.L.T. 359 (S.C.) — Referred ........................ [Paras 3.5, 35, 37]
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATION CITED
Addl. D.G.F.T. Trade Notice No. 11/2018, dated 30-6-2017 ............................. [Paras 1, 2.5, 4.1, 21, 38, 42]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Mihir Joshi, Senior Advocate with Kuntal A.
Parikh, for the Petitioner.
S/Shri Devang Vyas, Nikunt K. Raval, Nirzar S.
Desai and Parth H. Bhatt, for the Respondent.
[Judgment per : Harsha Devani, J. (Oral)]. - By this petition under Arti-
cle 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged Notification No.
26/2017-Cus., dated 29-6-2017 to the extent it amends Notification No. 16/2015-
Cus., dated 1-4-2015. The petitioner further challenges Trade Notice No. 11/2018,
dated 30-6-2017 issued by the second respondent Director General of Foreign
Trade to the extent it is stated therein under Chapter 5 that importers would
need to pay Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST). The petitioner has also
challenged the order-in-original dated 29-9-2018 with consequential relief and
seeks refund of Rs. 2,38,82,204/- (sic. Rs. 2,38,83,203/-) with interest at the rate of
24% thereon.
2. The first petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”) is en-
gaged in the business of manufacturing of cotton yarn by way of spinning pro-
GST LAW TIMES  16th April 2020  168