9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 1007X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... benefit under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS Scheme) - HELD THAT:- Reliance on Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short 'Act') dealing with 'Amendment of documents' is unnecessary in this case, since the shipping bills require no amendment and clearly reflect the intention of the petitioner to claim the benefit. In the petitioner's representation dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in paragraph Nos.2 to 5 that the petitioner should be denied the benefit merely on the ground of delay. This argument is rejected - The petitioner is entitled to the benefit under the MEIS Scheme and the respondents are directed to grant consequential benefits to the petitioner within a period of eight (8) weeks from today. The petitioner is entitled to the benefit under the MEIS Scheme and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Exports from India Scheme (MEIS Scheme). 3. It is an admitted position, duly supported by the shipping bills (sample bill SB No.1887033 dated 29.12.2017 placed at page 1 of the document compilation filed in support of the Writ Petition), that the intention of the petitioner/exporter to claim benefit under the MEIS Scheme is set out very clearly in the shipping bills itself. The rejection of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equire no amendment and clearly reflect the intention of the petitioner to claim the benefit. In the petitioner's representation dated 04.10.2019 too, the petitioner reiterates its intention to claim reward under the MEIS Scheme, but goes on thereafter to refer to provisions of Section 149 of the Act. 6. In view of the fact that the petitioner's intention to claim MEIS benefit is clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It appears that the petitioner has been inspired by an order passed by this Court in a Writ Petition granting benefit in similar situations. It would be too harsh to state in such circumstances, specifically in the light of the facts as noticed by me above in paragraph Nos.2 to 5 that the petitioner should be denied the benefit merely on the ground of delay. This argument is rejected. 9. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
