Page 51 - GSTL_16 April 2020_Vol 35_Part 3

2020 ] PRINCE SPINTEX PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 265
amended vide Notification No. 79/2017-Cus., dated 13-10-2017 making corre-
sponding amendments. Thus, with effect from 13-10-2017 EPCG authorisation
holders were allowed to claim exemption from the whole of IGST payable under
sub-section (7) of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act on the import of goods.
Thus, the importers who cleared the capital goods during the period 1-7-2017 to
12-10-2017 were not granted exemption from additional duty of customs though
they were holding valid EPCG authorisation.
2.11 The petitioner filed a refund application dated 28-4-2018 before the
Assistant Commissioner (Customs), ICD, Ahmedabad on 8-6-2018 and claimed
that the import was planned under EPCG licence on the premise that no duty of
customs whatsoever would be payable upon undertaking export obligation as
stipulated in Foreign Trade Policy and sudden levy of huge amount of IGST re-
sulted in blocking of huge working capital funds because in project financing this
was not anticipated and hence, was not considered on project cost based on
which project finance was tied up. Further vide Notification No. 79/2017, dated
13-10-2017, imports were again exempted from payment of all duties of customs
including IGST for EPCG holder.
2.12 The fifth respondent issued a show cause notice dated 18-8-2018
proposing to reject the refund application of the petitioner. The petitioner filed
its reply dated 6-9-2018 in the personal hearing granted to it on 7-9-2018 in pur-
suance to the said show cause notice. By the impugned order-in-original dated
29-9-2018, the fifth respondent rejected the refund application on the ground that
on the date of filing bill of entry, that is, 3-8-2017, no notification granting exemp-
tion from payment of IGST was in force and, therefore, such IGST was chargea-
ble on the said imported goods and it was correctly paid by the petitioner. Being
aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the reliefs noted
hereinabove.
3. Mr. Mihir Joshi, Senior Advocate, Learned Counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that there is no rationale for excluding sub-section (7) of Section 3 of
the Customs Tariff Act from the exemption granted under Notification No.
16/2015-Cus. vide Notification No. 26/2017 when essentially in substance the
levy is a levy of customs duty and is no different from levy of customs or addi-
tional duties of customs payable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act and
hence, could not have been excluded on any rational parameters or justification.
It was submitted that Notification No. 26/2017, to the extent it restricts the EPCG
authorisation holders from claiming exemption of IGST on capital goods is unfair
and arbitrary.
3.1 It was pointed out that the period between 1-7-2017 to 13-10-2017 is
the only period during which exemption is not available from payment of IGST
on the imported capital goods, to submit that if the import of goods had been
delayed, the petitioner would have been entitled to exemption.
3.2 It was submitted that by virtue of Notification No. 16/2015-Cus.,
the respondents had held out that the additional duty leviable thereon under
Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act is exempted, therefore, the principle of prom-
issory estoppel would apply and the respondents cannot levy additional duty of
customs under sub-sections (7) and (9) of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act on
the import of capital goods under an authorisation under the EPCG Scheme for
the period between 1-7-2017 to 13-10-2017. In support of his submission, the
Learned Counsel placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Shree Renuka
Sugars Ltd. v. Union of India, 2018 (360) E.L.T. 483, wherein the Court held thus :-

GST LAW TIMES  16th April 2020  171