2024 (7) TMI 941 - HC - Customs

Refusal of MESI benefits - foul of the doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India - Conversion of Shipping Bills from one scheme to another - learned Single Judge allowed the benefit of the scheme - HELD THAT - The vehement contention of learned Panel Counsel appearing for the Appellants that the very scheme in question being digitally handled, there is no scope for human intervention and therefore, the inadvertent error attributable to the private Respondent, regardless of his intent cannot be rectified, appears to be too farfetched an argument. In all human institutions whether humanly handled or machine handled, the errors are bound to occur and they need to be rectified, in the absence of law to the contrary. Otherwise, innocuous errors would perpetuate to the disadvantage of citizens, which a Welfare State like ours cannot justify. Further, it is not notified any rule that prescribes some limitation period that does not admit condonation of delay. This Appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Board Circular No. 36/2010 and limitation period for conversion of Shipping Bills.
2. Entitlement to MESI benefits under the Foreign Trade Policy.
3. Consideration of inadvertent error in choice and rectification.
4. Precedential value of decisions by multiple High Courts on similar issues.
5. Scope for rectifying errors in digitally handled schemes.
6. Doctrine of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:

1. The appeal questioned the order favoring the Respondents in a case concerning the entitlement to MESI benefits under the Foreign Trade Policy. The Appellant argued that the Single Judge overlooked Board Circular No. 36/2010 and the limitation period for converting Shipping Bills under different schemes. The Respondent, supported by a Senior Advocate, justified the judgment citing consistency with previous High Court decisions.

2. The Single Judge's order granted relief to the Respondents, allowing MESI benefits subject to the condition of withdrawing pending appeals. The court considered the inadvertent error made by the Respondent in choosing 'N' over 'Y' for availing the benefits, emphasizing the need to rectify such errors to prevent discrimination.

3. The Senior Counsel for the Respondent highlighted similar decisions by various High Courts in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of following precedents. The court, after reviewing the judgment and reasoning, declined to interfere, concurring with the assessment of the error and entitlement to MESI benefits.

4. The judgment also discussed the implications of multiple High Courts holding a consistent view on a central law, citing the doctrine of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It emphasized the need to avoid discrimination based on state jurisdiction and the persuasive value of such unified interpretations.

5. The Panel Counsel for the Appellants argued against rectifying errors in digitally handled schemes, claiming no scope for human intervention. However, the court dismissed this argument, stating that errors, whether human or machine-induced, should be rectified to prevent unjust disadvantages to citizens.

6. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, noting its lack of merit and emphasizing the need for timely implementation of the Single Judge's order. The judgment highlighted the importance of rectifying errors, following precedents, and upholding equality under the law.