9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant by their letter dated 03.04.2017 requested the Customs for a no objection certificate which has been rejected vide impugned order. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records of the case. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. She further submitted that the only ground on which request for NOC has been rejected is because the appellant s broker put N instead of Y on the shipping bills. This mistake on the part of the Custom broker is only a procedural lapse based on which a substantial benefit cannot be denied as has been done by the Commissioner in the impugned order. She furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 250 (Tri. Bang.) 4.1. She further submitted that the ratio of these decisions are squarely applicable to the facts of the appellant s case, even otherwise she submitted that it is the settled principle of law that merely for a procedural lapse, substantial benefit cannot be denied. 5. On the other hand, learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find 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 claimi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously. This order is passed, taking note of the fact that only due to inadvertence, the Writ petitioner instead of putting Yes , had put No in the form. 6.1. Further, in the case of ATC Tires Pvt. Ltd. (cited supra) wherein the Hon ble High court has observed as under: I hold that the exporter ought not to suffer for inadvertent mistake committed by him (while filing shipping bills under MEIS Scheme, he opted for no instead of yes. As already pointed out that this is a sheer inadvertent mistake by the Petitioner s Representative. The Petitioner had actually intended to claim the benefit under the aforesaid scheme. The Petitioner deserves to be given one more opportunity to set things righ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the way of consideration of entitlement on merits. 6.4. Further, in the case of Kancor Ingredients Ltd. Vs CC, Cochin (cited supra), this Tribunal has held as under: The only lapse on the part of the Appellant was that they have mentioned in the reward column as N instead of Y , which is only a procedural defect. Further, I find that otherwise the Appellant is entitled to claim MEIS benefit as per the export policy. Failure to mention Y in the reward column of the shipping bill for availing the benefit under MEIS Scheme can be correct by amending the shipping bill as Court in the case of Kedia (Agencies) Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) has also allowed the amendment even in a situation where there was no declaration of intention. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
