9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich was almost 19 months after rejection of its application being deficient. The petitioner s approach of merely writing letters after the decision dated May 05, 2016 cannot be construed as an assertion of its rights in the manner known to law. There are much substance in the submission of Mr.Jetly that the petitioner was not diligent in asserting its rights and pursuing its cause. The delay is quite gross which would disentitle the petitioner to any equitable and discretionary reliefs. We are, accordingly, not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to entertain this petition. Petition dismissed. - WRIT PETITION NO. 1248 OF 2021 - - - Dated:- 10-8-2021 - DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ G. S. KULKARNI, J. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g bill, whichever is later, in regard to the shipments for which claim was being filed. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that during the Financial Year 2012-13, it achieved Incremental Export Growth of FOB value of 285.62% compared to the earlier Financial Year 2011-12. It is the petitioner s contention that the petitioner had thus become entitled to duty credit scrip (authorization) to the extent of 2% of incremental growth of export of ₹ 55,65,229.59, in terms of the IEIS scheme. 5. The petitioner contends that considering its Incremental Export Growth and having realized the sale proceeds in convertible foreign exchange, it made an online-application dated March 28, 2016 for duty scrip for ₹ 55,65,229.59, in the pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... requested the respondents to acknowledge the same. There were further two reminders sent by the petitioner to the respondents dated May 10, 2016 and May 16, 2016. 9. Thereafter by a letter dated May 23, 2016, the petitioner stated that the e-com for IEIS although was generated by the petitioner on March 28, 2016, however, due to system error, the petitioner could not deposit the fee on March 28, 2016 and the fee was deposited on April 7, 2016. It was recorded that as the petitioner was required to submit the same to the RA, Mumbai, a letter from DGFT, New Delhi, confirming that e-com was generated on March 28, 2016, be issued. 10. The petitioner on February 8, 2017 addressed another letter to the respondents, explaining the reasons f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28, 2016 and the only deficiency being the deficiency of payment of the prescribed fees, such deficiency should not be weighed against the petitioner to disqualify the petitioner of the benefit of the IEIS licence. He accordingly submits that the PRC ought to have held the petitioner eligible for issuance of a scrip under the IEIS. 14. On the other hand, Mr.Jetly, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-UOI submits that considering the fact that the cut-off date was March 31, 2016 and the petitioner having not uploaded its complete application alongwith fees within time, the petitioner s application was rightly rejected being time-barred, which was informed to the petitioner by the respondent on May 05, 2016. It is also Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
