TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ping bill did not arise. It must be noted that to err is human and wherever such bonafide mistakes have happened procedures so designed ought to provide for a way to rectify such bonafide mistakes. An error arising out of lapse and where parties seek to have the same rectified, the system must accommodate necessary procedure to rectify it. While noticing that mistake that has happened is a technical mistake and is bonafide, on such technicalities, to deny substantive relief to the petitioner would amount to denial of justice - the respondent No.1 to allow the benefit under MEIS to the petitioner in respect of the 17 shipping bills, which is the subject matter of the present petition - petition disposed off. - WRIT PETITION No.8862/2021 (T-RES) - - - Dated:- 12-1-2022 - THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV PETITIONER: SRI RAVI RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT: SRI AMIT DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE, SRI JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADVOCATE AND SRI V.C. JAGANNATH, CGC ORDER Petitioner has sought for quashing of the order dated 28.05.2019 and also the impugned review order dated 07.01.2020 passed by respondent No.1 and has sought for a direction to respondent No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d column of shipping bills. However, the intent of claiming the MEIS reward has been declared affirmatively, in writing, in the said shipping bills. Trade notice 24/2018 dated 21.12.2018 was issued by DGFT to collect information of such cases and consider the matter. Later on dated 10.01.2019 received an e-mail confirmation from the office of DGFT that shipping bills were not considered for granting the MEIS reward. Since, the intention of claiming reward was declared in affirmative, in wordings, inadvertent ticking of reward column as NO instead of YES while filing shipping bills is a procedural lapse, which can be condoned and MEIS incentive for the aforesaid shipping bills be granted. Decision: The Committee having examined the case on the basis of justification furnished by the firm found no case of genuine hardship in their case and accordingly decided to reject it. 5. The said rejection by the Committee was taken up before the Appellate Committee and the same was considered by the Appellate Committee in its meeting of 07.01.2020. The said committee has observed as follows: The Committee discussed the case and observed that conversion from 'N' to 'Y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that we shall claim the benefit under Chapter-3 . 11. In essence, the petitioner submits that despite their intention to avail the benefit under the scheme, due to inadvertent error, ticked the reward column as 'no' instead of 'yes'. The procedural lapse caused has prejudiced the petitioner to claim benefit under the MEIS scheme. The committee and the Appellate Committee have observed that the automated system does not permit conversion of No to Yes and accordingly, question of transmission of shipping bills from ICEGATE to DGFT system is not possible. It is further pointed out that lapse on the part of the firm cannot be a ground to redo the process for which the System does not have any scope. 12. The Orissa High Court in the judgment passed on 16.09.2021 in the case of Indian Metals (Supra) had an occasion to consider challenge to the orders passed by the PRC, whereby the reward under the MEIS scheme was denied as the shipping bills were not forwarded to the DGFT. The Orissa High Court after detailed consideration of the similar factual matrix has affirmed the views of the High Courts of Kerala, Madras and Bombay which provide for extension of ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeal-II) (supra). In the latter judgment, the shipping bills were for the period from 6th February, 2017 to 2nd January, 2018 and in Pasha International V. The Commissioner of Customs (supra) the shipping bills were dated 26th May, 2018. 22. The Bombay High Court came to a similar conclusion in Portescap India Private Limited v. Union of India (supra) where the shipping bills were of 2017. After a thorough analysis the aforementioned decisions, it was observed as under: We find that the facts in the present case are identical to the facts of Pasha International (supra) and M/s. Greenglobe Exports India Pvt Ltd (supra) decided by the Madras High Court and see no reason as to why the petitioner herein should not be extended the benefit under MEIS considering that the only lapse on the part of the petitioner was that it had inadvertently mentioned in the reward column N (for No) instead of Y (for Yes). This is a procedural defect and is curable considering the fundamental objective of the scheme under Chapter 3 of the FTP 2015-20. The basic objective of the Exports from India Schemes is to provide reward to the exporters and to promote manufacture and export of noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
