Case Details: Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion), Mumbai vs. Unimark Remedies Ltd. (2026) 41 Centax 419 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Vikram Nath & Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
- S/Shri N.Venkataraman, A.S.G (NP), Ms Nisha Bagchi, Sr. Advocate, Abhishek Atrey, Bhuvan Kapoor, Raghvendra S. Srivastsa, Raman Yadav, Ms Charanya Lakshmikumaran, L. Badri Narayanan, Ms Neha Choudhary, Ms Nitum Jain, Swastik Mishra, Ms Medha Sinha, Atreya GC, Advocates, Gurmeet Singh Makker & Punit Dutt Tyagi, AOR, for the Petitioner.
- Ms Adrija Mishra, Advocate, S/Shri Harsh Kaushik & Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee imported duty-free inputs against advance licences under the DEEC Scheme and also used inputs on payment of Customs duty along with indigenous inputs for the manufacture of final products, which were either exported or cleared into the domestic market. The benefit of exemption was denied, and the demand for customs duty was raised on the ground that final products manufactured out of duty-free inputs imported in excess could not be cleared into the domestic market before fulfilment of export obligation in terms of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-2009. The Bombay High Court, in the impugned order, held that Para 4.1.5 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-2009, inserted by amendment in April, 2005, was not applicable to advance licences issued prior to such amendment, and there was no condition that imported inputs alone should be used for the manufacture of products to be exported. It was also held that the use of mixed inputs was permissible and that the export obligation need not be fulfilled using imported inputs alone. The matter was thereafter carried in a special leave petition. The matter was accordingly placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Resolution Plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, had been accepted and acted upon in respect of the assessee. The Court held that in view of such accepted Resolution Plan, the special leave petition filed by the department was liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the special leave petition was dismissed.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Unimark Remedies Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2017 (355) E.L.T. 193 (Bom.) — Slp dismissed [Para 2]
