Y.R.Meena, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 16th May, 2001 [2001 (132) E.L.T. 545 (Cal.)]. The limited controversy for our consideration in this appeal is whether the respondent is entitled for refund of terminal Excise Duty in accordance with the provisions of the import policy.
(2.) Learned Single Judge has considered the facts that the petitioner is a manufacturer of various items such as Tundish Nozzler, Tundish Shroud etc., which are refractory items used by the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant (in short VSP) in the manufacture of steel products, which thereafter are exported abroad. VSP being an exporter is the holder of Advance Licence issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade (hereinafter referred to as DGFT) on the strength of which it can import various specified items including refractory items from abroad free of Customs Duty.
(3.) Instead of importing such items from abroad it has chosen to procure such items from the petitioner who is the holder of an Advance Intermediate Licence under the import policy. The items manufactured by the petitioners are in the normal course subject to Central Excise Duty under the Excise Law. However, since the supply of the said items by the petitioner to VSP constitute 'Deemed Report' within the meaning of the import policy the petitioner is entitled to certain benefits under the policy. One of such benefits is refund of terminal excise duty under the policy. So the petitioner duly applied for such refund of terminal excise duty from the DGFT being the respondent No. 2. The petitioner previously got refund for the quarters ending March, 1994, June, 1994 and September, 1994. However, this time the DGFT refused to entertain demand of refund for the succeeding quarters. The DGFT is of the view that the petitioner was entitled to ab initio exemption of excise duty under Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, 1994 read with Notification No. 49/94, dated 22nd September, 1994.;