9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to take advantage and get benefit under a Customs notification. In the considered opinion of this Court, no tenable arguments has been made to say that the impugned order needs to be interfered with when the refusal to advance the effective date is based on the undisputed factual position that writ petitioner had only LOT and went ahead without waiting for LOP. Petition dismissed. - W.P.No.21623 of 2019 And W.M.P.No.20846 & 20850 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 24-7-2019 - Mr. Justice M. Sundar For the Petitioner : Mr.V.S.Manoj ORDER Mr.V.S.Manoj, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner is before this Court. 2. Writ petitioner made an application dated 25.01.2005 to the second respondent seeking permission for setti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al of 'Software Technology Park of India' ('STPI'), Ministry of Communication Technology, Department of Information Technology. In this representation dated 09.02.2006, writ petitioner submitted that their imports had already arrived in Chennai Port during October-November 2005 and therefore sought amendment of effective date of approval their application and wanted effective date of approval to be made as 04.04.2005, so that the import consignment can be cleared by taking advantage of and by taking benefits under Customs Notification No.153/93. Most relevant portion of this representation dated 09.02.2006 reads as follows: 'Since our imports had already arrived in Chennai Port during October November, the Custom A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the writ petition prayer, writ petitioner had sought approval with effect from the date of the application itself viz., 25.01.2005. Ultimately, when the writ petition was taken up, writ petitioner, restricted/abridged its prayer and therefore, writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent concerned to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 09.02.2006 and reminder dated 21.03.2006. Most relevant part of the order is contained in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5, which read as follows: '3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that without going into the merits of the case, it would suffice, if this Court directs the first respondent to consider the representations of the petitioner dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned the date of impugned order as 14.12.2018 instead of 12.12.2018 and this order of first respondent dated 12.12.2018 has been communicated to the petitioner vide order dated 17.12.2018. 11. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the reason given by the Ministry for not acceding to the request of the writ petitioner to make the effective date an earlier date i.e., date of application itself is that writ petitioner was well aware that only a Letter of Intent (LOI) had been given and LOP i.e., Letter of Permission had not been given, but the writ petitioner went ahead and imported the goods in October-November 2005. Having imported goods in October-November 2005 itself without waiting for LOP, writ petitioner cannot make a req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
