TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... between May 1998 to July 1998 - Held that: - The petitioner was only asking for rates as prevalent for the earlier period and the amount claimed at ₹ 7,61,423/- was on the rates that were prevalent at the relevant time. The doubt created that such a benefit would be applicable only to non-finished products was quite unnecessary for the Entry 71 does not say any more than the description of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 10 kilograms. The impugned order states that the notification would be applied only prospectively and cannot be availed for the petitioner who is claiming the benefit for its exports between May 1998 to July 1998. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the DEPB scheme which had been issued set out several products with respective rates to be applied for grant of benefit. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not having achieved the characteristics of finished products. The Assistant Commissioner through his letter dated 23-7-1998 urged the petitioner to seek for a clarification from DGFT in that regard. 3. The petitioner has made such a representation on 13-3-2000 and also has appended the details of shipping bills and setting out the FOB value through the various invoices raised and corresponding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 98 to the exports. The petitioner s case was rested on two distinct pleadings: (i) the petitioner had already availed of DEPB rates for the export upto April 1998 for the very same product as falling within the Entry 71. If the petitioner had been granted a benefit for the earlier period, there was no reason for denying the same for the subsequent period; (ii) the item specification was merely non ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e unnecessary for the Entry 71 does not say any more than the description of the product as in the manner indicated above. The denial of benefit was erroneous and the impugned order cannot be supported. The impugned order is quashed and the petitioner is entitled to the amount claimed, namely, Rs. 7,61,423/- with simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of claim till the date of payment. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
