Page 72 - GSTL_16 April 2020_Vol 35_Part 3

286 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
far as parts of power-driven pumps are concerned, there was no exemption in
respect thereof for the period from 1-3-1994 to 24-4-1994. The assessee in that case
took the same plea by arguing that since the decision of the exemption vide Noti-
fication dated 1-3-1994 was an inadvertent error and the Government realising
this mistake had reintroduced the exemption it will be treated as only corrective
and clarificatory in nature. This contention was accepted by the Court in the
aforesaid judgment holding that even during the period from 1-3-1994 to 24-4-
1994, the manufacturers of parts of power-driven pumps shall continue to get the
exemption. The Court held thus :
“16. In view of the consistent policy of the Government of exempting
parts of power-driven pumps utilised by the factory within the factory
premises, it could not be said that while issuing Notification No. 46/94 of 1-
3-1994, the exemption in respect of said item which was operative was ei-
ther withdrawn or revoked. The action was taken only with a view to re-
scinding several notifications and by issuing a composite notification. The
policy remained as it was and in view of demand being made by the De-
partment, a representation was made by the industries and on being satis-
fied, the Central Government issued a clarificatory Notification No. 95/94
on 25-4-1994. It was not a new notification granting exemption for the first
time in respect of parts of power-driven pumps to be used in the factory for
manufacture of pumps but clarified the position and made the position ex-
plicit which was implicit.”
36. In Ralson (India) Ltd. v. CCE (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated
the principles laid down in the above decision.
37. In Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. v. Union of India (supra), this Court was
dealing with a case where the Government of India withdrew the exemption
from payment of duty on export of sugar with the objective of controlling the
domestic sugar prices, which had nothing to do with exporters like the petition-
ers therein. Raw sugar imported against advance authorisation on the condition
of re-export had no impact on domestic sugar price. Imposing export duty on
such exports did not serve the purpose for controlling local sugar prices. Appar-
ently, since inadvertently the withdrawal of exemption also hit the exports of
sugar against advance authorisation, the Government of India on the representa-
tions made by the trade, quickly reintroduced the exemption limited to such
class. The Court was of the view that it was very clear that the Government of
India was correcting an inadvertent error or an unintentional withdrawal of the
exemption; and if that be so, the exemption notification dated 6-7-2016 must be
viewed as clarificatory or curative in nature; and that any other view would
leave the said class of exporters uncovered for a period of about three weeks al-
lowing the department to levy the export duty which was a wholly unintended
consequence of the Government of India policy. The Court formed such opinion
on the basis of the precedents of the Supreme Court in W.P.I.L. Ltd. v. CCE (su-
pra) and Ralson (India) Ltd. v. CCE. The Court accordingly, allowed the writ peti-
tion and declared that the notification dated 6-7-2016 with all its terms and con-
ditions would apply for the period 16-6-2016 to 6-7-2016 also and granted conse-
quential relief.
38. In the facts of the present case, import of capital goods under a val-
id authorisation under the EPCG Scheme was wholly exempt from payment of
any additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. The intention of
the Central Government while framing the EPCG Scheme was to permit export

GST LAW TIMES  16th April 2020  192