INDORAMA SYNTHETICS (I) LTD vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS

Judgment text excerpt

wp5120-22.doc TRUSHA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TUSHAR MOHITE ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Digitally signed by TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Date: 2025.04.25 17:23:42 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO.5120 OF 2022 Indorama Synthetics (I) Ltd. .. Petitioner Versus The Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Sriram Sridharan a/w Mr.Shanmuga Dev a/w Ms.Aditi Jain, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Jitendra Mishra, Mr.Abhishek Mishra, Mr.Rupesh Dubey, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. RESERVED ON: MARCH 04, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON: APRIL 25, 2025 Judgement: (Per FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By the present Petition, the Petitioner challenges the Order dated 30th November 2021 passed by Respondent No.2 rejecting the rebate claim filed by the Petitioner. Page 1 of 49 April 25, 2025 Mohite wp5120-22.doc 3. The Petitioner is, inter alia, engaged in the manufacture of Draw Texturised Yarn (DTY) falling under Chapter Heading 5406 & Polyester Staple Fibre (PSF) falling under Chapter Heading 5506. The Petitioner is undertaking the manufacturing activity in its factory premises situated at A- 31, MIDC Industrial Area, DTY Division, Butibori, Nagpur. 4. During the period January 2008 to April 2008, the Petitioner cleared its final products within India on payment of excise duty. Apart from this, during this period, the Petitioner also cleared a part of its production for export on payment of excise duty. 5. It is the case of the Petitioner that, at the time of receipt of inputs within the Petitioner' factory premises, it was not possible to know as to whether the inputs would be used in the manufacture of final products cleared within India or exported by th