9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (1) TMI 1385 - HC - CustomsEntitlement to the benefit under the MEIS - Seeking a direction to Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to forthwith accept the amendment made by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in 50 shipping bills filed by the Petitioner appearing on ICEGATE and to use the flag Y under the head REWARD against the said 50 shipping bills and grant the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) Scrips - HELD THAT - The only argument canvassed by the DGFT is that since the MEIS scheme expired on 28th February 2022 (although extended initially in March 2020 and later until January 2021 and thereafter until 28th February 2022) the DGFT is unable to process the applications filed by the Petitioner under the MEIS. This is the sole ground on which the above Petition is opposed. We find this argument to be without any merit. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner had as far back as on 27th April 2018 made an application to the Commissioner to amend its 50 shipping bills in terms of Section 149 of the Customs Act 1962. When the applications for amendment for shipping bills were made by the Petitioner the MEIS was very much in existence and had not lapsed or expired. In such a situation the benefit under the scheme cannot denied to the Petitioner. Besides if the MEIS coming to an end in February 2022 was to lead to expiry of all benefits under the scheme including those that had accrued during the life of the scheme there would have been no need to issue the advisory dated 11th April 2023. The issue in the present case is covered by two decisions of this Court in the case of TECHNOCRAFT INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED 2023 (2) TMI 74 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and in the case of LARSEN TOUBRO LIMITED 2024 (11) TMI 808 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . Though in these matters the issue of limitation arising out of the expiry of the MEIS was not squarely raised the facts in this case would show that though the scheme had expired reliefs were granted to the Petitioner. In fact the DGFT had not even raised the issue of expiry of the MEIS being fatal to the benefits in those cases. We are of the opinion that this is a new and novel attempt to now deny the benefit under the MEIS to the Petitioner. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 is directed to process the Petitioner s applications for release of MEIS scrips and if the Petitioner is found eligible for the issue of any such scrips to release the same within 15 days from the date of uploading of this order on the High Court website. Conclusion - The expiration of a scheme does not negate accrued benefits if administrative delays are responsible for the inability to claim those benefits timely. Government departments must act in a timely manner to avoid prejudicing the rights of individuals. Petition disposed off.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issues considered in this judgment are: 1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the benefits under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) despite the expiration of the scheme. 2. Whether the delay caused by the Customs Department in amending the shipping bills can be used as a justification to deny the Petitioner the MEIS benefits. 3. Whether the Respondents can deny the MEIS benefits based on the technicality that the scheme had expired by the time the Petitioner sought to claim the benefits. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Entitlement to MEIS Benefits Post-Expiration Relevant legal framework and precedents: The MEIS was introduced to promote the export of notified goods and provide exporters with rewards to offset infrastructural inefficiencies. The scheme was initially set to expire on 28th February 2022. The Court referred to previous decisions in Technocraft Industries (India) Limited and Larsen and Toubro Limited, where reliefs were granted under similar circumstances. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the expiration of the MEIS does not preclude the Petitioner from claiming benefits that had accrued during the scheme's validity. The delay in processing the amendment of shipping bills was attributed to the Customs Department's inaction, not the Petitioner. Key evidence and findings: The Petitioner had applied for amendment of the shipping bills on 27th April 2018, well within the scheme's active period. The CESTAT had allowed the amendment, which should relate back to the original application date. Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle that benefits accrued during the life of the scheme should not be denied due to administrative delays. The CESTAT's order allowed the amendments, reinforcing the Petitioner's entitlement. Treatment of competing arguments: The DGFT's argument that the scheme's expiration barred the processing of applications was dismissed as meritless. The Court emphasized that government departments cannot rely on their own delays to deny benefits. Conclusions: The Petitioner is entitled to the MEIS benefits, and the expiration of the scheme does not negate this entitlement. 2. Delay by Customs Department Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, allows for the amendment of shipping bills. The Court referred to the CESTAT's decision, which permitted the amendment. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the delay by the Customs Department in amending the shipping bills was unjustified and should not prejudice the Petitioner's rights. Key evidence and findings: The Petitioner had consistently sought amendments since 2018, but the Customs Department failed to act promptly, leading to the current dispute. Application of law to facts: The Court found that the Customs Department's inaction was the primary cause of delay, and the Petitioner should not be penalized for this. Treatment of competing arguments: The Customs Department's appeal against the CESTAT's order was withdrawn, indicating a lack of substantial grounds to oppose the amendment. Conclusions: The delay caused by the Customs Department cannot be a ground to deny the MEIS benefits to the Petitioner. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "One arm of the Government cannot rely upon the wrong-doing of another arm and thereby deny the benefit to the Petitioner." Core principles established: The expiration of a scheme does not negate accrued benefits if administrative delays are responsible for the inability to claim those benefits timely. Government departments must act in a timely manner to avoid prejudicing the rights of individuals. Final determinations on each issue: The Court directed Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to process the Petitioner's applications for MEIS scrips and release them if eligible, within 15 days. The Respondents were instructed not to deny eligibility based on technical or systemic issues.
|
