9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the beneficiary, WP is allowed by setting aside the order impugned dated October 1,2015 and by requesting the second respondent to reconsider the matter and pay the rightful dues of the petitioner under the incentive scheme in accordance with the notification of December 28, 2012 but without taking into account the first clause of the subsequent notification of September 25, 2013 to the extent that such clause detracts from the quantum of the incentive that an exporter is entitled to under the original notification. Appropriate steps should be taken by second respondent to ensure that the rightful dues of the petitioner are made available to the petitioner within six weeks from date. It will also be open to the petitioner to seek appropri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of value in excess of ₹ 1 crore, the petitioner s claim was rejected apparently on the ground that by a subsequent notification of September 25, 2013 the following two clauses were inserted in the relevant scheme: (i) Benefit of Incremental Export Incentivisation Scheme for the last quarter of 2012-13 will be limited to 25% growth or incremental growth on ₹ 10 crores in value, whichever is less. (ii) Claims in excess of this value will be subjected to greater scrutiny by Regional Authority. The petitioner claims that apart from the fact that it is unreasonable and arbitrary on the part of the Union to announce an incentive and attempt to take it away ex post facto, the Central Government has no authority under Section 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority has found that the petitioner is entitled to the maximum of about ₹ 99,000/- under the incentive scheme in view of the subsequent notification of September 25, 2013. In the light of the discussion above and particularly since the authority under Section 5 of the said Act does not permit a benefit already vested to be withdrawn from the hands of the beneficiary, WP No.1355 of 2015 is allowed by setting aside the order impugned dated October 1,2015 and by requesting the second respondent to reconsider the matter and pay the rightful dues of the petitioner under the incentive scheme in accordance with the notification of December 28, 2012 but without taking into account the first clause of the subsequent notification of September 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
