9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1072X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Scheme, a merchant-exporter was eligible to claim price reimbursement against consumption of specified raw material in the engineering goods exported from India. A claim had to be submitted by the merchant-exporter in the manner prescribed by the Hand Book issued by the Respondent Engineering Export Promotion Council ('EEPC'). The Petitioner submitted claims amounting to Rs. 25,88,304 to the EEPC during the year February 1992 to February 1994. 3. It is stated that in 1994, the Central Bureau of Investigation ('CBI') registered a criminal case against Mr. Yashpal Anand, the late husband of Mrs. Usha Anand who is the present proprietor of the Petitioner firm M/s. Anand Auto Craft Centre. Although the impugned claims did not relate to the years for which the CBI sought to prosecute Mr. Yashpal Anand, the EEPC did not disburse the amount under the IPR Scheme to the Petitioner on account of the pendency of the said criminal case. It is stated that despite representations made thereafter, the amount was not released to the Petitioner. 4. The facts in WP (C) 8248 of 2007 are more or less similar. Petitioner No. 1 is a company duly registered with the EEPC. It lodged claims un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was disposed of by an order dated 25th June 2003 by the learned Single Judge of this Court extending the time for verification of the claims by another two months. 8. The further application being CM/RA No. 8357 of 2003 filed by the EEPC before the learned Single Judge stated that since the Petitioners had not furnished requisite information for their claims, they could not be verified and, therefore, further extension was sought to comply with the order dated 21st April 2003. The said application was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by an order dated 21st November 2003. The operative portion of the order reads as under : "The claims have already been verified by Respondent No. 1 as is evident from the letters appearing from pages 12 to 44 of the paper book. The Respondent cannot now deny the benefits to the Petitioner on the ground that certain other documents which are required under a policy framed in the year 1996 or any time thereafter are required for purposes of verification of the claims of the Petitioner. Prima facie it appears to the Court that the Respondent cannot deny the benefits to the Petitioners on the basis of a policy which had been framed after th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te 12. The above letter was replied to by the Petitioners on 11th April 2005 stating that "we have no documents other than the documents that were submitted to you as required under the IPR Scheme." A further demand for the said documents was made by the EEPC by its letter dated 18th April 2005. The Petitioners again replied on 21st April 2005 maintaining that the High Court had not directed the Petitioners to submit any document and that it was for the EEPC to take a decision on their claims. 13. On 25th April 2005, the EEPC wrote a detailed letter rejecting the claims of the Petitioners. Inter alia, it was pointed out that only 6 of 33 Custom Certified Invoices were available. As regards the Bank Realisation Certificate, only 21 certificates had been received whereas the total claim was for 33 invoices. Even as regards the available 6 Customs Certified Invoices, only 4 Bank Realization Certificates had been received. Without the Customs Certified Packing List, the actual weight of each article in the claim application form could not be verified and in the absence of such documents, the EEPC could not make the payments. Finally, in the absence of Test Certificates, whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could not produce the above documents despite repeated requests made by the EEPC. Even as regards the available six Customs Certified Invoices, payments could not be made till such time the corresponding Bank Realisation Certificates, Customs Certified Packing Lists and Test Certificates were not produced. 17. The above submissions have been considered by this Court. A perusal of the IPR Scheme together with the Handbook makes it abundantly clear that without a claimant producing the required documentation, it would not be possible for the EEPC to process the claim. It appears to this Court that the further application CM/RA No. 8357 of 2003 filed by the EEPC, which led to the order dated 21st November 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge, was necessitated by the fact that as on that date, the complete documentation for processing the claims in each of the cases had not been furnished to the EEPC. The order dated 21st November 2003 indicates that the learned Single Judge did not accept this position. However, while dismissing the appeals, the Division Bench, in para 4 of its order dated 28th January 2005, observed that verification had to be done by the EEPC in accordance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
