CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

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