TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1700X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a different view with regard to the applicability of the SFIS under the FTP 09-14. This Court is informed that the said issue is now pending before the Supreme Court in view of the divergence of the opinion between this Court and the Bombay High Court. However, there was no divergence of opinion with regard to the applicability of the FTP 04-09. There can be no dispute that the petitioners are entitled to the benefits as were granted to the petitioners in terms of the SFIS scrips issued to the petitioners - It is stated that the petitioners have thereafter imported certain capital goods by payment of duty and the petitioners pray that directions be issued for refund of the duty already paid. Petition allowed. - W.P.(C) 6640/2015 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court vide Order dated 21st Jan 2015 under WP No. 1663/2012 2. The petitioners were issued duty free licences on 05.02.2009 in terms of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009 (FTP 04-09). The said scrips were issued pursuant in terms of the Served From India Scheme (SFIS) which entailed issue of such licences as an incentive to all service providers exporting services from India. 3. The aforementioned licences (SFIS licence numbers 0510235856 to 0510235865, dated 05.02.2009) were recalled by the respondents on the ground that petitioner no.1 was a subsidiary of a Foreign Entity, and according to the respondents, it was not eligible for benefits under the SFIS Scheme. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred a w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y in the language of the provisions of paragraph 3.6.4.2 of FTP 2004-09. All Service Providers complying with the specific eligibility criteria were entitled to the benefits under the SFIS as framed under FTP 2004-09. The expression All service providers cannot be interpreted to exclude service providers, which are subsidiaries of foreign entities. The impugned minutes also, clearly, indicate that the provisions of the SFIS under FTP 2004-09 were not considered or discussed. Thus, insofar as DuPont is concerned, its claim which was only under FTP 2004- 09 was rejected without even considering the relevant policy. There was no possible occasion for the DGFT to interpret the words All Service Providers in a manner so as to exclude D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court in its decision in Naman Hotel Limited (supra) in the following words :- ..However, this is a 2009-14 Foreign Trade policy. The questions raised and answered are arising in the backdrop of the interpretation thereof placed in the year 2011 with which there is no agreement between two High Courts. What the Petitioner apprehends that recoveries would be effected for the past several years from 2005-06 by forfeiting prior incentives. If anything is recoverable in relation to prior policies and earlier to 2009-14 FTP that is surely something which cannot be taken away by making a adjudication order in 2015. We would therefore, hold that it will not be permissible for the authorities adjudicating the claims or issues arising ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
