9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fit of this scheme instead of putting "Y" CHA has put "N". 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants vide their letter dated 24.10.2016 requested the office of the Deputy Commissioner to retransmit the subject shipping bills to DGFT with intent as "Y". Thereafter, the Customs by their letter dated 07.11.2016 had replied that 35 shipping bills were transmitted on 01.11.2016 and thereafter by mail dated 04.01.2017, the appellant had once again requested Customs that some of the shipping bills had been transmitted, which were not reflected and requested for doing the needful. In reply, there was a mail dated 11.01.2017 from Customs where they stated that appellant's request for modifying shipping bills was under process ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned order, they have rejected the request of the appellant. She further submitted that the Commissioner has relied upon the case laws which are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, there was an inadvertent error which happened as the appellant and their new Custom broker was new to this scheme and subsequently the appellants have been claiming the benefit of the scheme and this mistake has never reoccurred. In support of her submission she relied upon the following decisions: * Pasha International Vs CC, Tuticorin, 2019 (365) ELT 669 (Mad.) * ATC Tires Pvt. Ltd. Vs Zonal Additional DGFT, Chennai, 2020 (374) ELT 896 (Mad.) * P.A. Footwear Pvt. Ltd. Vs DGFT, New Delhi, 2020 (372) ELT 660 (Mad.) * Da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rocedural lapse putting "Y" instead of "N" for claiming the benefit of the scheme. Further, the Commissioner has relied upon the case laws which are not applicable in the present case. On the other hand, the appellant has relied upon the various decisions which are squarely applicable in the present case. In the case of Pasha International Vs CC, Tuticorin (cited supra), the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Para 4 held as under: 4. I am of the view that a similar direction can be given in the present case also. Of course in the present case, the Learned Counsel for the respondent is only seeking time. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the second respondent can be directed to issue N.O.C. to enable the petitioner to avail t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Petitioner are squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case also." 6.3. Further, in the case of Davinci Leather Pvt. Ltd. Vs CC, Chennai (cited supra) the Hon'ble High court has observed as under: "This very issue as to whether the inadvertent error of not claiming benefit under the MEIS was fatal to the claim itself has come to be considered by Learned Single Judges of this Court in Pasha International Vs Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, 2019 (365) ELT 669 and Global Calcium Pvt. Ltd. Vs Asst. Commissioner [order dated 10.06.2019 in W.P. No.3321 of 2019) [2019 (370) E.L.T. 176 (Mad.)] in favour of the petitioner. I am also of the view that the error in not stating 'YES' to availment of the Scheme, such error, admitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
