WP-2310-24GRP.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 2310 OF 2024

Rika Global Impex Limited ...Petitioner

Versus

Union Of India And Ors ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 2493 OF 2026

Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd And Anr ...Petitioners

Versus

Union Of India Thru Secretary And Ors ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 3678 OF 2024

K.S. Commodities Private Limited ...Petitioner

Versus

Union Of India And Ors ...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 8744 OF 2024

M/s. Uma Exports Limited ...Petitioner

Versus

Union Of India Through The Joint Secretary & Ors ...Respondents

__________

Mr. Abhishek Rastogi with Ms. Pooja M. Rastogi with Meenal Songire with Ms.

Aarya More & Mr. Chayank Bohra, for Petitioner in WP/2310/2024 &

WP/3678/2024.

Mr. Janay Jain with Mr. Sansha Garud with Ms. Dhwani Parekh i/b. Jayker and

Partners, for the Petitioner in WP/8744/2024.

Mr. Darius Shroff, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rahul P. Jain i/b. Alpha Chambers,

for the Petitioner in WP/2493/2026.

Ms. Jaymal Ostwal, for Respondent No.4 in WP/2310/2024.

Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra with Mr. Ashutosh Mishra with Mr. Rupesh Dubey with

Mr. Vikas Salgia, for Respondent No.2 in WP/2310/2024 & WP 8744/2024.

Page 1 of 18

P. V. Rane

VIDYA

SURESH

AMIN

Digitally

signed by

VIDYA

SURESH

AMIN

Date:

2026.04.20

19:40:17

+0530

WP-2310-24GRP.DOC

Ms. Shehnaz V. Bharucha with Mr. Vikas Salgia with Mr. Dhanesh Shah, for

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in WP/2493/2026, WP 3678/2024.

Mr. Yogendra Mishra with Ms. Jaimala Ostwal with Ms. Ruju Thakkar with Ms.

Sangeeta Yadav, for Customs Department/Respondent No.3 in WP 2310/2024,

WP 2493/2026 and WP 8744/2024, for Respondent Nos.4,5,7 in WP

3678/2024.

__________

CORAM:G. S. KULKARNI &

AARTI SATHE, JJ.

RESERVED ON :25 MARCH 2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 20 APRIL 2026

JUDGMENT (Per G. S. Kulkarni, J.).

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of the

parties, heard finally.

2. As this batch of petitions raise common issues of law and involve similar

facts, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The petitioners seeks relief that the petitioners are entitled to the export

Rebate under the Remission of Duties and Taxes on Export Products Scheme

(RoDTEP) for exports of white refined sugar for different periods as set out in

memos of these petitions.

4. The petitioners in these petitions are

inter alia engaged in the export of

“white sugar

(crystal)” stated to be bearing ITC(HS) Code 17011490. The

petitioners have contended that RoDTEP was promulgated vide Notification

dated 17 August 2021 issued by the Government of India, retrospectively

amending paragraph 4.01 of Chapter 4 of Foreign Trade Policy by inserting sub-

para (e) and added paragraph 4.54 to 4.59 in Chapter 4 to enable remission of

Page 2 of 18

P. V. Rane

WP-2310-24GRP.DOC

duties and taxes on exported products. The petitioners were claiming/utilizing

refund under RoDTEP on export of sugar bearing the said tariff item.

5. On 23 September 2021, Notification No.75/2021- Customs (N.T.) was

issued

inter alia prescribing guidelines qua the location, wherein duty credit

under RoDTEP will be deposited / maintained to be used by eligible exporter.

Another Notification No.76/2021-Customs (N.T.) was issued

inter alia in regard

to manner of issuance, utilization and transfer of such duty being regulated.

6. Thereafter, Notification No.10/2015-20 dated 24 May 2022 was issued

wherein export policy of sugar was revised from “free” to “restricted”. The said

notification, however, permitted export of restricted sugar under specific

permission from Directorate of Sugar, Department of Food and Public

Distribution (DFPD). In such context, comprehensive guidelines are notified by

the Directorate of Sugar, for obtaining specific permission

inter alia stating that

free export of sugar for shipping bills filed on and/or before 31 May 2022 and for

which export vessel has been allocated rotation number.

7. By a Notification No.40/2015-20 dated 28 May 2022 the revised export

policy of sugar was extended till 31 October 2023. Also on 5 November 2022

the Directorate of Sugar prescribed permissible quantum for export sugar which

would not require specific permission save or otherwise provided in the said

letter.

8. We do not intend to advert to the facts of the individual cases of the

petitioners. Suffice it to observe that the common grievance of the petitioners is

Page 3 of 18

P. V. Rane

WP-2310-24GRP.DOC

that they have been arbitrarily deprived of the benefits of the duty credit under

RoDTEP on the exports made, in that context of what has been prescribed in

Paragraph 4.55(iv) (Chapter 4 of the Foreign Trade Policy), whereunder

ineligible supply of item categorized under the Scheme are provided

inter alia

being item namely “products which are restricted for export” under Schedule 2 of

the Export Policy in ITC(HS) as contained in Notification No.19/2015-2020

dated 17 August 2021 being the Scheme Guidelines for RoDTEP.

9. It is the petitioners’ case that indisputedly the petitioners were exporting

White Crystal Sugar bearing ITC(HS) Code 17011490, during the relevant

period. They were also availing and utilizing duty credit under RoDTEP during

the relevant period subject to fulfillment of all conditions including realization of

sale proceeds for export made. By Notification No.76/2021-Customs (NT)

dated 23 September 2021 issued in exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of

Section 51B of the Customs Act, the Central Government has notified the

manner in which the duty credit for goods exported under RoDTEP Scheme be

availed, subject to the conditions and restrictions as specified thereunder, in

accordance with paragraph 4.01(e) of the Foreign Trade Policy. It was provided

that the duty credit shall be subject to the conditions

inter alia that the export

categories or sectors listed in Table 1 annexed to the said notification, shall not be

eligible for duty credit under the Scheme. In the said Schedule Item No.1

provided for the goods which are restricted or prohibited for export under

Schedule 2 of Export Policy in ITC-HS. Also by subsequent Notification

No.10/2015-20 dated 24 May 2022 amendment was made in the export policy

Page 4 of 18

P. V. Rane

WP-2310-24GRP.DOC

for sugar, in order to maintain domestic availability and price stability of sugar,

thereby restricting the export of sugar in terms of the said notification. The said

notification reads thus:

“Government of India

Ministry of Commerce & Industry

Department of Commerce

Directorate General of Foreign Trade

Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi

Notification No. 10/2015-20

Dated: 24 May, 2022

Subject:-Amendment in Export Policy of sugar.

S.0 (B) In order to maintain domestic availability and price stability of sugar,

Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 read with

Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 (No.

22 of 1992), as amended, read with Para 1.02 and 2.01 of the Foreign Trade

Policy, 2015-20, hereby amends export policy of sugar under S.No.93 of

Chapter 17 of ITC (HS), Schedule-II as under:

S.N

o

ITC (HS)

Code

Description Existing

Policy

Revised

Policy

Policy condition

93

1701 14 90

1701 9990

Sugur (Raw

Sugar Refined

Sugar and White

Sugar)

Free Restricted

(i) With effect from 1st

June, 2022 upto 31st

October, 2022 or until

further orders, whichever

is earlier, (export of sugar

is allowed only with

specific permission from

Directorate of Sugar,

Department of Food and

Public Distribution

(DFPD), Ministry of

Consumer Affairs, Food

& Public Distribution.

(ii) Detailed procedure for

issue of necessary

permissions for export of

sugar will be notified

separately by Department

of Food and Public

Distribution (DFPD).

2. This restriction is not applicable to Sugar being exported to EU and USA

under CXI. and TRQ quota as per prescribed procedure in the respective

Public Notices.

Page 5 of 18

P. V. Rane

WP-2310-24GRP.DOC

3. Effect of this Notification:

Export of Sugar (Raw, Refined and White sugar) is placed under 'Restricted"

category from 1st June, 2022 onwards (except fixed quantity of sugar being

exported under CXL and TRQ quota to EU and USA). Export after

01.06.2022 will be allowed on production of specific permission (as per the

procedure to be notified separately by DFPD) from Directorate of Sugar,

Department of Food and Public Distribution (DFPD), Ministry of

Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution. 2022.

(Santosh Kumar Sarangi)

Director General of Foreign Trade

Ex-Officio Additional Secretary, Govt. of India

E-mail: deh@nic.in

10. The Government of India issued a Combined Export Release Order for

Exporters dated 5 June 2022 thereby granting permission to exporters to export a

total quantity of 10LMT of sugar within 90 days from the date of the said order

as per the application of the exporter, details of which are set out in Annexure I

(application wise) and Annexure II (exporter wise), in relation to the sugar season

2021-22. All the petitioners figured in the said list as notified, with the

appropriate quantity of export being permitted to them. It is the petitioners’ case

that accordingly the export application was discharged by the petitioners.

11. However, what has transpired thereafter is that having undertaken the

export, benefit of RoDTEP was denied to the petitioners on the ground that it

was a restricted export in view of the Notification No. 10/2015-2020 dated 24

May 2022.

12. There is some background litigation in regard to the grievance of the

petitioners being asserted in these petitions. One of the petitioners in the present

batch of petitions namely Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. being aggrieved by denial of

Page 6 of 18

P. V. Rane

WP-2310-24GRP.DOC

the benefits under RoDTEP, had approached the High Court of Gujarat in the

proceedings of Special Civil Application No.2186 of 2023. In regard to the said

proceedings, the situation was to the effect that as Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. has

taken benefit of RoDTEP, coercive action of recovery was initiated against Shree

Renuka Sugars Ltd. for export benefits allowed from 1 June 2022 to November

2022 under the RoDTEP Scheme. The Division Bench of the High Court of

Gujarat considering the rival contentions in the context of the action of the

department denying the RoDTEP benefit, by way of recovery, against Shree

Renuka Sugars Ltd., allowed the said proceedings in terms of the following

operative order:

“5. As the controversy unfolds as above, the court is of the view that the

following directions would serve the ends of justice. Accordingly it is provided

that,

(i) The petitioner shall be entitled to claim the RoCITEP Scheme benefit in

respect of the exports of white refined sugar at the rate permissible. Even if

such benefit is not claimed or mentioned in the shipping bills, the petitioner is

permitted to make necessary application seeking such benefit in respect of the

consignments concerned.

(ii) The passage of time in making such applications which would occur as

amount would not be mentioned in the shipping bills, would not render the

claim of the petitioner time barred.

(iii) The non-mentioning of the claim of the benefit in the shipping bill by the

petitioner shall also not be treated as waiver on part of the petitioner by the

authorities.

(iv) The authority shall process the claim of the petitioner for RODTEP

Scheme benefit Irrespective of the fact that the same was not mentioned or

lodged along with the shipping bill concerned.

(v) If any adjudicatory proceedings are require to be undertaken by the

authorities in respect of the claim of the petitioner for the benefit, the

respondent Nos.3- The Commissioner of Customs, Kandla and respondent

No.4-The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, (OBK), Kandla, shall while

deciding the claim, extend opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and shall

act in accordance with Section 28 of the Customs Act.”

13.Similar view was taken by a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court of

Gujarat in the case M/s.Satyendra Packaging Ltd. vs. Union of India

1

. The

1 2023-VIL-851-GUJ-CU, dt. 29/11/2023

Page 7 of 18

P. V. Rane

WP-2310-24GRP.DOC

relevant observations as made by the Division Bench which followed the decision

in Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. (supra) read thus:

“9. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having

considered the facts of the case which are identical to the case of M/s. Shree Renuka

Sugars Ltd. (supra), we are of the opinion that the respondents could not have

denied the benefit of rebate under the RoDTEP scheme to the petitioners, more

particularly, when the petitioners have exported product after fulfilling the

conditions as prescribed by the Directorate of Sugar as well as the Notifications

issued by the Central Government from time to time. The Coordinate Bench of this

Court has also passed the order permitting rebate to the petitioner of the said case.

10. In the facts of the case, vide Notification dated 24th May 2022, the category of

sugar (raw sugar, white sugar and refined sugar) is changed from free to restricted

category with policy conditions, which are as under:

"(i) With effect from 1 June, 2022 upto 31" October 2022 oruntil further

orders, whichever is earlier, export of sugar is allowed only with specific

permission from Directorate of Sugar, Department of Food and Public

Distribution (DFPD), Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public

Distribution.

(ii) Detailed procedure for issue of necessary permissions for export of

sugar will be notified separately by Department of Food and Public

Distribution (DFPD)."

11. As per the Government circular dated 5th November 2022, the schedule

quantity of sugar for export in Sugar Season for 2022-23 was also issued with

various conditions, whereby the quantity for export of sugar to various mills was

also quantified.

12. By Notification dated 21 October 2022, the Government has also issued export

release order for sugar from Somalia.

13. In view of the above Notifications issued by the Government from time to time

permitting export of sugar, the basic objective of the RODTEP scheme is to grant

benefit of rebate to the exporter as an incentive or exporting product.

14. In view of the facts and foregoing reasons, both the petitions are allowed.

Prayers 32(a) and 36(a) in respective petitions are granted. The respondents are

directed to grant benefit of rebate under the RODTEP scheme to the petitioners

who have exported sugar with specific permission under the specific condition

prescribed by the Directorate of Sugar as per Notification No.19/2015-20 dated

17th August 2021 and Clause 3 of paragraph 2 of the Notification No.76/2021-

Customs (N.T.) dated 23rd September 2021. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid

extent. No order as to costs.”

14. At this juncture it is required to be noted that the common orders passed

in

M/s.Satyendra Packaging Ltd. (supra) were assailed by the Department before

Page 8 of 18

P. V. Rane

WP-2310-24GRP.DOC

the Supreme Court in the proceedings of Special Leave Petition (civil) Diary

No.16262 of 2024, which was dismissed by an order dated 26 April 2024. In

such context, the Deputy Commissioner (Export), Customs House, Mundra,

with the approval of the Principal Commissioner of Customs addressed a

Communication dated 28 August 2024 to the Deputy Director, Reward Scheme

(RoDTEP), Directorate General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi,

inter alia

regarding grant of benefit of RoDTEP Scheme to M/s. Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd.

and M/s. HRMM Agro Overseas Pvt. Ltd.

inter alia recording dismissal of SLP as

also the decision to file a review petition before the Supreme Court being not

approved on an opinion as sought. The said letter is placed on record in these

petitions. The relevant extract of which is required to be noted, which reads

thus:-

“F. No.CUS/ASS/MISC/971/2024-EA Dated: 28.08.2024

To, The Deputy Director,

Reward Scheme (RODTEP)

Directorate General of Foreign Trade,

Vanijya Bhawan, 'A' Wing, 16 Akbar Road,

New Delhi-110011.

Sir.

Sub: Grant of benefit of RoDTEP Scheme -M/ Reg.

Kindly refer to SCA No.2186 of 2023 was filed by M/s Shree Renuka

Sugars before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the matter of RODTEP on

Export of Sugar wherein one of the respondents is DGFT.

2. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 13.04.2023 in SCA No.2186

of 2023 filed by M/s Shree Renuka Sugars is reproduced as under:

5. As the controversy unfolds as above, the court is of the view that the

following directions would serve the ends of justice. Accordingly it is

provided that,

(i) The petitioner shall be entitled to claim the RoDTEP Scheme benefit in

respect of the exports of white refined sugar at the rate permissible. Even if

such benefit is not claimed or mentioned in the shipping bills, the petitioner

Page 9 of 18

P. V. Rane

WP-2310-24GRP.DOC

is permitted to make necessary application seeking such benefit in respect of

the consignments concerned.

(ii) The passage of time in making such applications which would occur as

amount would not be mentioned in the shipping bills, would not render the

claim of the petitioner time barred.

(iii) The non-mentioning of the claim of the benefit in the shipping bill by

the petitioner shall also not be treated as waiver on part of the petitioner by

the authorities.

(iv) The authority shall process the claim of the petitioner for RODTEP

Scheme benefit irrespective of the fact that the same was not mentioned or

lodged along with the shipping bill concerned.

(v) If any adjudicatory proceedings are require to be undertaken by the

authorities in respect of the claim of the petitioner for the benefit, the

respondent Nos.3- The Commissioner of Customs, Kandla and respondent

No.4- The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, (DBK), Kandla, shall while

deciding the claim, extend opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and shall

act in accordance with Section 28 of the Customs Act.

6. Except giving the above directions, the court has not gone into any other

aspect in the subject matter including the extent of exports which may be

allowed by customs authorities under the export policy.

3. In a similar matter, in Special Civil Application No.3085 of 2023 filed by

M/s HRMM Agro Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and Special Civil Application No.3084

of 2023 filed by M/s Satyendra Packaging Ltd. before the Hon'ble High Court

of Gujarat., the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat vide Order dated 29.11.2023

passed the following order:

"The respondents are directed to grant benefit of rebate under the

RODTEP scheme to the petitioners who have exported sugar with specific

permission under the specific condition prescribed by the Directorate of

Sugar as per Notification No.10/2015-20 dated 17th August 2021 and

Clause 3 of paragraph 2 of the Notification No.76/2021-Customs (N.T.)

dated 23rd September 2021. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent".

4. The Hon'ble High Court in the above order which is similar to the present

case, has granted the benefit of the RODTEP to the petitioners who have

exported sugar with specific permission under the specific condition prescribed

by the Directorate of Sugar.

5. Against the above High Court order dated 29.11.2023, the department filed

Special Leave Petition (CIVIL) Diary No.16262/2024 before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India which was dismissed vide order dated 26.04.2024 as

detailed under:

We are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The Special Leave Petition is

hence dismissed.

6. The department on direction of DGFT has preferred to file Review

Petition in respect of the above Hon’ble Supreme Court of India order dated

09.07.2024. However, Under Secretary (Legal) vide letter dated 30.07.2024

Page 10 of 18

P. V. Rane

WP-2310-24GRP.DOC

informed that after the approval from Board, the proposal approval from Board,

the proposal was referred to the Department of Legal Affairs for seeking

opinion of Ld. Law Officer, regarding feasibility of filing Review Petition. In

this matter, Shri N. Venkataraman, ld. ASG, has opined as under:

"Review Petition is not recommended. The Supreme Court is less likely to

interfere as ultimately it was a Central Government Litigation. The grounds

pointed out only shows that the appeal could have been drafted better but

does not indicate any error apparent on the face of the record requiring the

SC to invoke its review jurisdiction."

7. In view of the above, the matter has attained the finality. therefore, the

applicant; M/s Shree Renuka Sugars is eligible for RODTEP benefit in light of

the Hon'ble High Court Order as discussed in paras supra.

8. This office has no facility in ICES EDI System to convert the Scheme

change for RoDTEP Scheme "No" to "Yes" in the Shipping Bills. Therefore, it

is requested to take necessary action at your end for granting the benefit of

RoDTEP Scheme in compliance of the above Hon'ble High Court order.

This is issued with the approval of the Hon'ble Pr. Commissioner of

Customs, Customs House, Mundra.”

15. Another letter was addressed by the Office of the Commissioner of

Customs, Custom House, Kandla to the Deputy Director, Reward Scheme

(RoDTEP), Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi, dated 3 March 2025

recording that the matter had attained finality and benefit of RoDTEP would be

required to be granted to M/s. Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. The said letter was

issued with the approval of the Commissioner of Customs, Customs House,

Kandla.

16. Thus, referring to the aforesaid letters, the contention as urged on behalf

of the petitioners is that the Revenue has accepted the orders passed by the High

Court of Gujarat in M/s. Shree Renuka Sugars (supra), hence, insofar as the

petitioners are concerned, the said benefit cannot be deprived. Our attention is

also drawn to a recent communication dated 20 January 2025 addressed to all

Sugar Mills on the subject ‘Sugar mill-wise Export Quantity of sugar for export in

Page 11 of 18

P. V. Rane

WP-2310-24GRP.DOC

Sugar Season 2024-25-reg’, in regard to decision of the Government of India to

allocate export quota of 10 LMT of sugar for season 2024-25, to contend that the

RoDTEP is being validly implemented even for the subsequent period.

17. In the aforesaid circumstances, Mr. Darius Shroff, learned Senior Counsel,

Mr. Abhishek Rastogi and Mr. Janay Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioners, would submit that it is arbitrary for the respondents to deny the

benefit to the petitioners of RoDTEP, inasmuch as, once the policy has been in

vogue and the same was accepted and actions are taken thereunder by the

petitioners, merely in view of the notification No.10/2015-2020 dated 24 May

2022 imposing restriction, it cannot be considered that the export of sugar as

undertaken by the petitioners can be categorized as prohibited exports, and not

eligible for RoDTEP benefits, inasmuch as all such exports have been permitted

on specific permission that has been granted by the Directorate of Sugar,

Department of Food and Public Distribution (DFPD) and in the manner as

notified, in regard to the quota of export allocated to each of these petitioners.

18. It is thus submitted that a legitimate benefit which was otherwise entitled

to the petitioners was denied on a patent arbitrary consideration and on a

misreading of the Notification dated 24 May 2022. It is submitted that there is

no justification whatsoever for such benefits to be denied to the petitioners

and/or any actions for recovery being taken against some of the petitioners on the

ground that the benefit of RoDTEP was arbitrarily availed on behalf of the

petitioners. It is therefore, submitted that, in any event, the decisions of the High

Court of Gujarat in Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. (supra) and M/s.Satyendra Packaging

Page 12 of 18

P. V. Rane

WP-2310-24GRP.DOC

Ltd. (supra), have attained finality in view of the Special Leave Petition being

dismissed by the Supreme Court, as also the department accepting, that such

orders had attained finality and benefit being already granted to Shree Renuka

Sugars Ltd. as also M/s. Satyendra Packaging Ltd. It is, however, stated that

although benefits were granted, the interest was not granted and for which

independent proceedings were filed before the High Court of Gujarat and the

same are pending in such cases.

19. On the other hand Ms. Bharucha, learned counsel for Revenue has

opposed this petition. She has justified the impugned action, primarily relying on

the Notification No.76/2021 dated 23 September 2021, by which in terms of

paragraph 2(3) thereof, ‘

sugar’ was placed in the category of ineligible for duty

credit in terms of Item (1) “Goods which are restricted or prohibited for export

under Schedule-2 of Export Policy in ITC-HS.

20. However, Ms. Bharucha would not be in a position to dispute that by

subsequent Notification No.10/2015-2020 dated 24 May 2022, with effect from

1 June 2022 till 31 October 2023, or until further orders, the export of sugar was

allowed with a specific permission from Directorate of sugar, Department of Food

and Public Distribution (DFPD). The said notification also specifies the effect of

the said notification in terms of paragraph 3 which we have extracted

hereinabove.

21. The contentions as urged in the reply affidavit are to the effect that

blanketly sugar had become a restricted item of export and an item of total

Page 13 of 18

P. V. Rane

WP-2310-24GRP.DOC

restriction, which is not the correct position as contended on behalf of the

petitioners, considering the policy conditions as set out in the Notification dated

24 May 2022. Ms. Bharucha is also not in a position to dispute that in identical

circumstances the High Court of Gujarat has allowed the proceedings filed by

Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. and M/s.Satyendra Packaging Ltd. and that such

orders have attained finality in view of the SLP being dismissed by the Supreme

Court.

22. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the

record, we find ourselves in agreement with the petitioners that it would be

arbitrary for the respondents to deny the benefits of the RoDTEP to the

petitioners. This considering the effect of the notification and the policy of the

Government of India on the export of sugar as discussed hereinabove. It would

thus be difficult to accept a proposition that at the material time, the sugar could

be considered to be a totally restricted/prohibited item for export so as to deprive

the petitioners to the benefit of RoDTEP. No doubt that the export of sugar

considering domestic need ought to be regulated, however the regulation is in

terms of the notifications which certainly permit export of appropriate quota as

may be approved by the Directorate of Sugar. If this is held to be an accepted

position by the department, then certainly the benefits of the scheme cannot be

denied to the petitioners, who have acted upon the scheme and have undertaken

exports which certainly are conducive to the national interest and integral to the

foreign trade policy.

Page 14 of 18

P. V. Rane

WP-2310-24GRP.DOC

23. In any event, the issue needs to be held to be concluded in view of the

decision of the High Court of Gujarat in Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. (supra) and

M/s.Satyendra Packaging Ltd. (supra), which have attained finality in view of the

Supreme Court dismissing the SLPs.

24. There is substance in the contention of Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the

petitioners, that once the department has accepted the decision of the High

Court of Gujarat in Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. (supra) and M/s.Satyendra Packaging

Ltd. (supra) where necessarily the principles of law as laid down in the decision of

the Division Bench of this Court in Maneklal Chunilal & Sons Ltd. Vs. The

Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Bombay

2

ought to apply. Chief Justice

Mr. Chagla speaking for the Bench had observed that as a matter of uniform

policy whatever view the Court may have, the view taken by another High Court

on the interpretation of the section of a statute which is an all-India statute, needs

to be accepted. The said decision was followed in the subsequent decision in

Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-II vs. Jayantilal Ramanlal & Co.

3

wherein the Division Bench of this Court, following the decision in Maneklal

Chunilal & Sons Ltd. (supra) has made the following observations:

“15. … …… .. In our opinion, therefore, the point is directly

covered by the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in

Viswambharan's case [1973] 91 ITR 588, which was followed

subsequently by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High

Court. It is well-settled practice of this High Court, at least as far as

income-tax law is concerned, that decisions of other High Courts ought to

be followed for the sake of uniformity. In Maneklal Chunilal & Sons Ltd.

v. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 375 (Bom), at p. 385, Chagla C.J., has enunciated

the uniform policy pursued by the Bombay High Court in such matters

where the Division Bench followed the view of a Special Bench of the

2 AIR 1954 Bom 135

3 (1982) 137 ITR 257

Page 15 of 18

P. V. Rane

WP-2310-24GRP.DOC

Madras High Court, and it is pertinent to note that that view was followed

although the opposite view favourable to the assessee appealed more to the

Division Bench. Observations to the same effect are to be found in CIT v.

Chimanlal J. Dalal & Co. [1965] 57 ITR 285 (Bom). In the latter case the

judgment of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Kantilal Nathuchand

[1964] 53 ITR 420 was doubted but still followed for the sake of

uniformity. We are aware that the practice is not uniform among the High

Courts, but nevertheless we are of opinion that it is desirable one. Unless

the judgment of another High Court dealing with an identical or

comparable provision can be regarded as per in-curium, it should

ordinarily be followed. … … … “

25. In our opinion, the wisdom of the above observations of Chief Justice

Chagla, as followed in Jayantilal Ramanlal & Co. (supra), certainly needs to guide

the department in the present times, more particularly considering the scores of

matters being filed on the same issue before different High Courts, once the issue

has attained finality, qua the department in view of an authoritative

pronouncement by a High Court, similar contended issues ought not to be

agitated by the department before the other High Courts. The situation further

worsens by the department asserting a contrary position before such different

High Courts, thereby inviting different interpretations and orders leading to

judicial chaos. Such an issue certainly needs to be addressed by the Government

of India either in the National Litigation Policy, so that uniform policy in respect

of such issues is followed in proceedings before different High Courts in relation

to Central Legislations and more particularly in tax matters. However, this

certainly with the only exception, as observed in Maneklal Chunilal & Sons Ltd.

(supra) qua a judgment of a High Court dealing with identical or comparable

provisions, if it is regarded as

per incuriam.

Page 16 of 18

P. V. Rane

WP-2310-24GRP.DOC

26. In the light of the above discussion, in our opinion, the petitioners would

become entitled to the benefits of the RoDTEP, wherever not granted, and in

those cases where the benefit was granted and recovery was initiated,

status quo

ante

would be required to be maintained by granting the petitioners a refund of

the said amount along with an appropriate rate of interest.

27. As a consequence of the above discussion, the petitions are accordingly

allowed in terms of the following order:

ORDER

(i) It is held that the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of the

RoDTEP.

(ii) The respondents are directed to grant benefit of rebate under the

RoDTEP Scheme to the petitioners, who have exported sugar with

specific permission under the conditions prescribed by the Directorate of

Sugar as per the Notification No.19/2015-2020 dated 17 August 2021

and Clause 3 of paragraph 2 of the Notification No.76/2021-Customs

(N.T.) dated 23 September 2021, and who have not been granted such

benefit.

(iii) In relation to the benefits which were already granted, and the same

were taken away/withdrawn from the petitioners, requiring them to re-

deposit the benefits as taken, such petitioners be granted refund of the

Page 17 of 18

P. V. Rane

WP-2310-24GRP.DOC

amounts so returned, within a period of four weeks from today, alongwith

the interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

(iv) As a consequence of the aforesaid orders, the respondents shall not

take any coercive action for any recovery in those cases where benefit is

granted.

28. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

Page 18 of 18

P. V. Rane