TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he HBP, the appellant has fulfilled its export obligation as mandated by the [EPCG] scheme. It is trite that when a method has been laid down, has laid down, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed, and thus, the mandate of submission of the Bills of Entry cannot sustain - In Taylor v. Taylor, as notably followed in Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor [ 1936 (6) TMI 11 - PRIVY COUNCIL ] and a plethora of judgments of the Supreme Court, the most well-known being, perhaps, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh [ 1963 (8) TMI 43 - SUPREME COURT ], conclude the issue, in law, in favour of the appellants. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - LPA No. 314 of 2019 and C.M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -D He-Cd Laser Head including Model KR1801C power supply under the EPCG scheme, saving a duty of ₹ 2,11,237/-, and the export obligation corresponding ₹ 16,89,896/-. 4. On 13th December, 2007, the appellant entered into a Product Purchase Agreement with Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., for supply of ICA Holograms at the unit located at Nokia Telecom Special Economic Zone, Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu. 5. Pursuant to the supply of consignments in accordance with the Product Purchase Agreement, the Development Commissioner of MEPZ SEZ in acknowledgement of the export transaction undertaken by the Appellant issued Form I covering all invoices raised by the appellant in respect of the supply of goods to Nokia SEZ. 6. Post expiry of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... newal of expired license to be refused in terms of Section 9(2) of the FTDR. The petitioner sent a letter dated 16th September, 2014 representing against the said Circular. 12. The appellant received another Show Cause Notice on 4th September, 2014, issued by the Joint DGFT, under Sections 14 and 11(2) of the FTDR, asking to show cause as to why fiscal penalty must not be imposed for violations of the conditions of the license by importing the capital goods at concessional rate of Customs Duty in violation of Exim policy. 13. Upon receipt of the aforesaid Show Cause Notice, the appellant responded to the same vide communication dated 30th October, 2014, enclosing therewith a certificate dated 25th September, 2014 issued by a M/s. Blue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aims, as reiterated before the Court, and upholding the orders impugned in the said writ. Aggrieved thereagainst, the petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 18. We have heard Mr. Kumarjeet Banerjee, Learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ashim Sood, Learned Counsel for the respondent, and have perused the records before us. 19. Mr. Kumarjeet Banerjee, the Counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, has submitted that, in light of Rule 23 of the SEZ Rules, 2006, the supplies made by the petitioner must be considered towards discharge of its export obligation under the EPCG Scheme. Rule 23 of the SEZ Rules, 2006 is reproduced hereinbelow : 23. Supplies from the Domestic Tariff Area to a Unit or Developer for thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of the appellant here. 22. Mr. Kumarjeet Banerjee, in conclusion, submits that it is matter of record and an admitted fact that the appellant has duly furnished both, supply invoices and the bank realisation certificates in Appendix-22B in realisation to the supply to the Nokia SEZ, and have thus fulfilled its export obligation. Thus, it is evident that there cannot be a requirement to evidence the bills of Export, and the single judge has, therefore, erred in directing the furnishing of the bills of Export, such a direction being erroneous and ex facie contrary to the Chapter 5 of the Handbook of Procedures. 23. Mr. Ashim Sood, Learned Counsel for the respondents has graciously and in an absolutely fair manner, as an officer of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Supreme Court, the most well-known being, perhaps, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh [AIR 1964 SC 358], conclude the issue, in law, in favour of the appellants. The legal principle, fossilised over a period of time, is thus enunciated, in Singhara Singh [AIR 1964 SC 358]. 8. In Nazir Ahmed s case [AIR 1936 PC 523] the Judicial Committee observed that the principle applied in Taylor v. Taylor [(1875) 1 ChD 426] a Court, namely, that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that or nor at all and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden, applied to judicial officers making records under s. 164 and, therefore, held that magistrate could not give oral evidence of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
