Page 58 - GSTL_16 April 2020_Vol 35_Part 3

272 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
4.2 Reference was made to Notification No. 33/2015-2020, dated 13-10-
2017 issued in exercise of powers conferred by Section 5 of the Foreign Trade
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 read with paragraph 1.02 of the Foreign
Trade Policy 2015-2020, as amended from time to time, the relevant portion
whereof is extracted hereunder :-
“2. Para 5.01(a) is amended to read as under :
“5.01(a) EPCG Scheme allows import of capital goods for pre-
production, production and post-production at Zero customs duty.
Capital goods imported under EPCG scheme for physical exports are
also exempt from whole of the Integrated Tax and Compensation
Cess leviable thereon under the sub-section (7) and sub-section (9) re-
spectively, of section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) as
may be provided in the notification issued under Department of Rev-
enue. Alternatively, the Authorisation holder may also procure Capi-
tal Goods from indigenous sources in accordance with provisions of
paragraph 5.07 of FTP.”
4.3 It was submitted that thus, subsequently exemption from IGST has
been provided; however, during the period when the petitioner imported the
capital goods, such imports were not exempted from payment of IGST and
hence, the refund application made by the petitioner has rightly been rejected.
4.4 It was emphatically argued that there cannot be any promissory es-
toppel against an exemption. It was submitted that the exemption granted was
not by way of an incentive, but was a facility given to the petitioner and that on
introduction of a new law, namely, the Goods and Services Tax Acts, such ex-
emption came to be withdrawn. It was contended that it cannot be said that the
exemption has been unreasonably withdrawn. Moreover, by virtue of trade no-
tice dated 30-6-2017, there is no withdrawal of benefit, inasmuch as IGST is re-
funded in the form of input tax credit.
4.5 Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in
Kasinka Trading v. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 274 = 1994 (74) E.L.T. 782 (S.C.),
wherein the Court held thus :-
“26. So far as the second batch of cases is concerned the facts of CA Nos.
4333-34 of 1983 need be noticed. These two appeals have been filed against
the judgment and order dated 3-3-1983 of the High Court of Delhi. The ap-
pellants in these two appeals are engaged in the manufacture of aluminium
conductors and aluminium conductors steel reinforced which are supplied
to the various State Electricity Boards. Aluminium ingots and rods are the
basic raw materials used in the production of such conductors. In order to
meet the domestic requirements, it became necessary to import the alumin-
ium ingots and aluminium rods. The Central Government therefore issued
Notification No. 79-Cus., dated 18-4-1980 exempting aluminium wire rods
and aluminium ingots from the whole of customs duty as well as the addi-
tional duty leviable on it. The notification contained the clause that the noti-
fication shall remain in force till 30-9-1980. Simultaneously, another Notifi-
cation No. 80-Cus. was issued by the Central Government exempting the
above items from the whole of auxiliary duty as well. The appellants claim
that on the basis of the promise and assurance contained in the two exemp-
tion notifications, they commenced negotiations with the manufacturer and
suppliers of the above items for the purchase of these items from abroad. In
the meantime, the Central Government issued another Notification No. 174-
Cus., dated 29-8-1980, withdrawing the earlier Notification No. 79-Cus.,
dated 18-4-1980 and on the same date i.e. 29-8-1980, yet, another notifica-
GST LAW TIMES  16th April 2020  178