2021 (3) TMI 665 - AT - Customs

Benefit of MEIS-Scheme - denial of benefit of MEIS Scheme with respect to 94 shipping bills during the period from April 2015 to November 2015 - in the shipping bills in the column where they are claiming benefit of this scheme instead of putting Y CHA has put N - procedural lapse or not - HELD THAT - The appellant is a three-star export house and once the largest exporters of tyres in India. Further, I find that the MEIS-Scheme was introduced in 2015 and the appellant filed the shipping bills but by a procedural lapse in the shipping bills in the column for claiming the benefit of the scheme instead of putting Y CHA inadvertently put N which is purely a procedural mistake. Further, in the shipping bills, the appellant has stated that they want to avail the benefit of MEIS-Scheme - the request of the appellant to issue NOC by the Customs was denied vide impugned order by relying on the Circular dated 23.09.2010 of the CBEC which is not applicable in the present case because that Circular relates to conversion of shipping bills from one export promotion scheme to another which is not the case in the present case. In the present case, it is only a correction by a procedural lapse putting Y instead of N for claiming the benefit of the scheme. The rejection of the request for issuing NOC is not sustainable in law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of benefit under MEIS-Scheme due to a procedural lapse in shipping bills.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the Commissioner's order denying MEIS-Scheme benefits to the appellant based on a procedural error in 94 shipping bills from April 2015 to November 2015. The appellant requested retransmission of the bills with the correct intent, but Customs rejected the request for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) citing the error. The appellant argued that the denial was unjust as it was a procedural lapse by the Custom broker. The appellant contended that the Circular relied upon by the Commissioner did not apply to this case as it was not a conversion between schemes. The appellant highlighted previous decisions supporting their position, emphasizing that inadvertent errors should not lead to the denial of substantial benefits.

The Customs Department, represented by the Authorized Representative, supported the findings of the impugned order, emphasizing the procedural error in the shipping bills.

Upon review, the Judicial Member noted that the appellant was a significant exporter and that the MEIS-Scheme was new at the time of filing. The mistake of marking "N" instead of "Y" in the shipping bills was deemed a procedural error, and the appellant had expressed the intent to avail the scheme's benefits. The Judicial Member found the Circular cited by the Commissioner inapplicable and noted that the Commissioner's reliance on certain case laws was misplaced. Referring to various decisions, including Pasha International and ATC Tires Pvt. Ltd., the Judicial Member emphasized that inadvertent errors should not deprive exporters of legitimate benefits. The Judicial Member directed the authorities to issue the NOC upon verification of the shipping bills, allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the authorities to issue the NOC to the appellant, emphasizing that the denial of benefits due to a procedural lapse was not legally sustainable. The decision was based on the principle that inadvertent errors should not hinder legitimate entitlements, as supported by various legal precedents.