MULTITEX FILTRATION ENGINEERS LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner aggrieved by the rejection of its claim of refund of Terminal Excise Duty (TED), has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia impugning the said decision, primarily relying upon the decision of this Court in M/s Alstom Transport India Limited v. Union of India and Ors. (2018) 363 ELT 69.

(2.) At the admission stage, prima facie, it appeared to us that the W.P.(C) 10512/2019 Page 2 of 19 Petitioners case is squarely covered by the aforenoted decision and also the policy circular No. 11/2015-20 dated 23 July, 2018 issued by Director General of Foreign Trade. We, accordingly permitted the Respondents counsel to take instruction on this aspect. Today, Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC on instructions states that petitioners claim is distinguishable from the case of M/s Alstom Transport India Limited (supra) and opposes the petition. She also states that the respondents have waived their right to file a counter affidavit. In these circumstances, we have proceeded to hear the matter on merits. The subject matter of the present petition is indeed covered by the decision rendered by this Court in M/s Alstom Transport India Limited (supra) for the reasons discussed and deliberated hereinafter. Nevertheless, we have independently examined the facts of the case.

(3.) Briefly stated, the petitioner - M/s Multitex Filtration Engineers Limited, holding excise registration, is a company inter alia engaged in the business of manufacturing industrial filtration equipment for oil, gas, etc. It was appointed as sub-contractor to supply equipment to power generating companies for the setting up of various power projects. In relation to the purchase orders placed by EPC Contractors -BHEL Noida, Lanco Infratech Gurgaon, Oil India Limited and BHEL Hyderabad, the Petitioner supplied equipment in the nature of capital goods and spares, during the period of 15 December, 2009 to 10 February, 2011, in the capacity of a sub-contractor inter alia for setting up of Power Projects. It duly discharged excise duty upon clearance of the said goods. Thereafter, as an eligible claimant, petitioner sought to take benefit in terms of para 8.3 (c) read with 8.4.4 (iv) under chapter 8 of the Foreign Trade Policy (hereinafter FTP) and W.P.(C) 10512/2019 Page 3 of 19 submitted five applications for refund of TED, all dated 28 February, 2014 before Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, IP Estate, New Delhi. The details of such applications are as follows: