1989 (2) TMI 199 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the benefit of registration on export in execution of the supplementary contract was additional quantity at increased rates and could not be allowed under Government Policy? Held that - In view of the unequivocal language of paragraph 10 of the 1970 scheme and clear prescription of the different periods during the subsequent amended schemes and the admitted facts that the export in respect of these two contracts were made only after July 1974, we see no reason to allow the appellant s claim. Whether the Government s policy was conducive to maximisation of exports and foreign exchange earning is entirely a different matter. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of cash assistance scheme for registered contracts involving exports extending over a period of 12 months. Eligibility for cash assistance on exports made after specified dates under different schemes. Applicability of Government policy on long-term assistance to exporters. Dispute over cash assistance for exports of Transmission Towers under multiple contracts. Refusal of cash assistance by authorities based on contract amendments and increased contract value.

Analysis:
The judgment involves the interpretation of a cash assistance scheme for registered contracts involving exports extending over a period of 12 months. The appellant, a company exporting Transmission Towers, entered into contracts with the N.E.B. of Malaysia. The contracts were registered with the Central Bank of India, and subsequent contracts were also registered. Dispute arose when the authorities refused cash assistance for exports made under certain contracts after specific dates, citing scheme amendments and increased contract value.

The appellant argued that the schemes did not prescribe a time limit for exports to be eligible under the scheme, emphasizing the date of the Firm contract over the date of export. They contended that the Government's policy aimed at long-term assistance to exporters, and depriving cash assistance would defeat the purpose of the scheme. However, the respondents argued that cash assistance was not guaranteed once contracts were registered, especially for exports made after specified dates.

The Court agreed with the respondents, citing paragraph 10 of the scheme dated February 4, 1970, which clearly stated that exports made after specified dates would not be eligible for cash assistance. Subsequent schemes prescribed specific periods for eligibility, and exports made after those periods were not entitled to assistance. The Court noted that the word 'amendment' implied changes to the original scheme, precluding the simultaneous application of different schemes for cash assistance.

The appellant's claim was rejected based on the unequivocal language of the scheme and the clear prescription of different periods in subsequent amended schemes. The Court found no merit in the appeal, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to scheme provisions and amendments in determining eligibility for cash assistance on exports under registered contracts, especially concerning specified dates and scheme revisions.