TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... W.P.(C) 2000/2016 - - - Dated:- 31-1-2017 - MR SANJEEV SACHDEVA J. Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner: Ms. Shilpi Jain Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC for UOI with Mr. Abhishek Ghai, Advocate. JUDGMENT 31.01.2017 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an inaction of the respondents in complying with the directions issued by a Division Bench by judgment dated 07.01.2016 in W.P.(C) 6732/2015 titled T.T. Limited vs. Union of India Anr., whereby, the Division Bench directed the respondent No.2 to ensure that a speaking order is passed in terms of Clause (ii) of paragraph 3.14.4 (c) and 3.14.5(c) of Foreign Trade Policy, 2009 2014 regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... less. (ii) Claims in excess of this value will be subjected to greater scrutiny by Regional Authority (d) Clarification issued by DGFT office (from file no. 01/61/180/188/AM 13/PC 3 dated 23.09.2014), produced as under: It is informed that sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of each notification are independent para in both the notification Nos.44 and 43 dated 25.09.2013. The limiting of claim is clearly mentioned in the first sub-para of both notifications which fixes the upper limit of grant of benefit. (The second sub-para in both the notifications only directs RAs to exercise caution while dealing with cases of incremental growth of exports under the scheme. It does not entitle any applicant to higher levels of benefits under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the scrips (bearing nos. 0519000005 of ₹ 1005828/- 0519029543, 0519029544 for ₹ 10000000/-) to you according to policy and procedure in place and in real soul and sprit. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment in the case of M/s. Kanak Export (supra), referred to in the impugned order, was not applicable in the facts of the case inasmuch as the scheme, which was in issue in the said judgment, was a different scheme namely Target Plus . It is submitted that the petitioner was also a party in the said batch of matters and the SLP filed by the respondents had been dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further points out that the clarification relied upon in the impugned order ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
