TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 289 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 7-4-2016 - Sanjib Banerjee, J. Shri Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Advocate, Aryak Dutt and D. Das, Advocates, for the Petitioner. Ms. Debjani Roy, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER The Court : The petitioners question the propriety of a notification of September 25, 2013 and the denial by the office of the Director General of Foreign Trade of an incentive that the petitioners were entitled to under a notification of December 28, 2012. The petitioners claim that the issue involved herein is covered by an order of this Court of January 28, 2016. The petitioners say that a recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported at (2016) 2 SCC 226 = 2015 (326) E.L.T. 26 (S.C.) (Director General of Foreign Trade v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the quantum of the same material exported by the petitioners during the relevant quarter of the previous financial year. The petitioners applied before the appropriate authority with a substantial claim for the duty credit scrip. Such claim has been, in the most part, declined without reasons by an order of October 5, 2015. In fact, the relevant order does not reveal the rejection of the petitioners claim under the notification of December 28, 2012, but it is evident from the quantum of credit indicated in the relevant communication, that a reduced amount has been allowed. 6. The petitioners say that such partial rejection is by virtue of the subsequent notification of September 25, 2013 by which a cap was put on the quantum of benefit. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffect the rights that had vested in any exporter prior to the subsequent notification coming into effect. 9. The later judgment of the Delhi High Court of January 7, 2016 in WP (C) 6732 of 2015 = 2016 (332) E.L.T. 400 (Del.) (TT Limited v. Union of India) does not appear to have noticed the earlier view of the same Court in the Sesa Sterlite case. 10. In TT Limited, the Bench relied on paragraph 105 of the judgment in Kanak Exports to decline the reliefs sought by the petitioner before the Delhi High Court in identical circumstances as the present case. The extract from the Supreme Court judgment relied upon in that case is quoted : 105. We may state, at the outset, that the incentive scheme in question, as promulgated by the Gov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, a right had accrued in their favour to claim the benefits provided for achieving the target. In that case, the scheme set out certain targets and once the targets were achieved by the exporters, they were entitled to duty free import to the extent of 10% of the incremental growth in exports. The Supreme Court noticed that the only conditions for such entitlement were that it had to be used after a certain date and in respect of certain items of import. A subsequent notification that discontinued the scheme, according to the Supreme Court, amounted to retrospective operation being given to the subsequent notification which was held to be impermissible. 13. The Supreme Court referred to several previous judgments and the general princip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notification of September 25, 2013. Accordingly, the petitioners claim should be considered by the DGFT in such light and on the basis of the earlier notification and without reference to the later. The order impugned dated October 5, 2015 is set aside to the extent that it disallowed the petitioners claim under the notification of December 28, 2012. The relevant authority is requested to reconsider the matter in the light of this order and pass an appropriate order as to the petitioners entitlement within four weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order. 16. WP No. 289 of 2016 is allowed as above, but without any order as to costs. 17. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
