Facts
The petitioners are exporters of "white refined sugar" under ITC(HS) Code 1701 1490
Source reference: p. 2, para. 4They sought rebates under the Remission of Duties and Taxes on Export Products (RoDTEP) Scheme, which was introduced to remit duties on exported products
Source reference: p. 2, para. 4Via Notification No. 10/2015-20 dated 24 May 2022, the Central Government amended the export policy for sugar from "free" to "restricted," requiring specific permission from the Directorate of Sugar, Department of Food and Public Distribution (DFPD)
Source reference: p. 5, para. 9The petitioners exported sugar after obtaining the requisite specific permissions
Source reference: p. 6, para. 10However, the Respondents denied RoDTEP benefits (and in some cases initiated recovery of benefits already granted), contending that "restricted" items are ineligible for the scheme under Paragraph 4.55(iv) of the Foreign Trade Policy and Notification No. 76/2021-Customs
Source reference: p. 4, para. 8; p. 13, para. 19Issues
1. Whether the export of sugar, categorized as "restricted" but permitted via specific permissions from the DFPD, is ineligible for duty credit under the RoDTEP Scheme
Source reference: p. 4, para. 82. Whether the Revenue can take a contrary stand on the eligibility of sugar for RoDTEP benefits when the issue has attained finality through previous High Court judgments affirmed by the Supreme Court
Source reference: p. 11, para. 18; p. 15, para. 24Law Applied
The court interpreted Notification No. 10/2015-20 (Export Policy of Sugar) alongside the RoDTEP Scheme guidelines under Notification No. 19/2015-20 and Notification No. 76/2021-Customs (N.T.)
Source reference: p. 4-5It applied the principle of judicial discipline and uniformity in the interpretation of all-India statutes, as established in Maneklal Chunilal & Sons Ltd. v. CIT and CIT v. Jayantilal Ramanlal & Co.
Source reference: p. 15, para. 24These precedents mandate that for the sake of uniformity in Central Legislations/tax matters, the view taken by one High Court should be followed by another unless the previous judgment is per incuriam
Source reference: p. 16, para. 25Reasoning
The court reasoned that the restriction on sugar export was not absolute but regulatory, as the policy explicitly permitted exports subject to specific permissions and quotas granted by the DFPD
Source reference: p. 14, para. 22Since the petitioners complied with these regulatory requirements, their exports could not be categorized as "prohibited" so as to deprive them of RoDTEP benefits
Source reference: p. 14, para. 22Furthermore, the court noted that the Gujarat High Court had already decided this identical issue in Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. and M/s Satyendra Packaging Ltd., ruling in favor of the exporters
Source reference: p. 7-8, paras. 12-13The Revenue’s Special Leave Petition against those orders was dismissed by the Supreme Court, and the Department had subsequently issued internal communications admitting that the matter had attained finality
Source reference: p. 10-11, paras. 14-15The court emphasized that the Department cannot agitate the same issue before different High Courts once an authoritative pronouncement exists, as doing so leads to "judicial chaos"
Source reference: p. 16, para. 25Holding
The court allowed the petitions, holding that the petitioners are entitled to RoDTEP benefits for sugar exported under specific permissions
The Respondents were directed to grant the rebate to the petitioners and, in cases where benefits were previously withdrawn/recovered, refund the amounts within four weeks along with interest at 6% p.a.
Source reference: p. 17-18, para. 27(iii)The court further restrained the Respondents from taking any coercive action for recovery in cases where benefits had already been granted
Source reference: p. 18, para. 27(iv)Original Court PDF
Rika Global Impex LimitedvsUnion Of India And Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in