Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

Deemed Export Entitles Refund of Duty Drawback with Interest: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India upheld the decision of the Karnataka High Court, affirming that M/S. B. T. Patil and Sons Belgaum (Construction) Pvt. Ltd. Is entitled to receive interest on the delayed refund of duty drawback under the ‘deemed export’ scheme. The apex court’s bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India against the High Court’s judgment.

The case, titled Union of India & Ors. Vs. M/S. B. T. Patil and Sons Belgaum (Construction) Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 7238 of 2009), was pronounced on 5th February 2024. The judgment critically examined the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, Customs Act, 1962, Central Excise Act, 1944, and the Exim Policy of 1992-1997 and 1997-2002.

M/S. B. T. Patil and Sons, a class-I contractor specializing in civil contract works, was involved in the Koyna Hydro Electric Power Project, Maharashtra, financed by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The company claimed duty drawback under the ‘deemed export’ scheme of the Exim Policy, which was initially rejected by the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). However, after various representations and a decision by the Policy Interpretation Committee, the DGFT approved the duty drawback in 2002, which was paid in 2003.

The primary contention arose regarding the entitlement of interest on the delayed payment of duty drawback. The respondent approached the High Court seeking interest due to the delay in the refund, which was granted by the High Court. The Union of India appealed against this decision.

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, in the judgment, noted, “It is evident that supply of goods to the project in question by the respondent was a case of ‘deemed export’ and thus entitled to the benefit under the Duty Drawback Scheme.” The Court further observed that “respondent is entitled to refund of duty drawback as a deemed export under the Duty Drawback Scheme.” Upholding the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court observed that the respondent was entitled to interest at the rate fixed under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962, which at the relevant time was fifteen percent per annum.

The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces the principle of fairness in the administration of fiscal statutes and emphasizes the entitlement of interest on delayed refunds, marking a significant precedent in cases involving ‘deemed export’ under the Exim Policy.

Date of Decision: 05 February 2024

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. VS M/S. B. T. PATIL AND SONS BELGAUM

 

Latest Legal News