9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of mandamus, a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondent No.4 or his officers including respondent No.5 to amend the shipping bills to claim benefit under MEIS scheme. (c) that this Hon'ble Court may direct the respondents to allow modification in the online system to enable the petitioners to correct the technical error by allowing selection table `yes' for shipping bill to be under reward scheme and process the application to grant export incentives under MEIS to the petitioner or alternatively direct respondent Nos.4 and 5 to recall and amend the 12 shipping bills granting the MEIS benefit." 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Anand Nainawati for the petitioner, Mr. Devang Vyas, learned ASG assisted by learned advocate Mr. Karan Sanghani for respondent No.1 as well as learned advocate Mr. Pratik Khubchandani for Mr. Dhaval D. Vyas for respondent Nos.4 and 5. 3. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. Rule. Respective learned advocates waive service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nformed that respondent No.5 has denied manual correction in the shipping bills and the benefit under the scheme for the said shipping bills may kindly be granted to the petitioner. Another communication dated 11.4.2019 together with an email of the even date was sent to the respondent and reminder dated 9.5.2019 was also sent to the respondent authority. 5. The petitioner, thereafter lodged a complaint dated 26.8.2019 with respondent No.2 for non action on the request of granting MEIS benefit. However, respondent No.2 did not adhere to the said complaint and closed the complaint with remark "manual amendments are not transmitted to the DGFC server and thus, MEIS is not granted to the online e-form module for this shipping bills" 6. It is further submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that vide communication dated 16.10.2019 was written to the respondent No.5, a request was made to transmit EDI shipping bills to the portal of DGFT and thereby, allow the benefits of MEIS scheme. Various reminders were also sent to that effect by the petitioner. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that communication dated 10.12.2019 from the Principal Commissioner issued to the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rved that the reflection of such manual amendment in the automated system is not feasible, hence, request of the firm has been rejected. The issue is more of procedural in nature than of substantive kind as the software has the limitation and it does not permit even after the manual correction of the shipping bill, the benefit to flow of MEIS Scheme as it does not recognize said manual correction, the petitioner is deprived of the benefits." 11. Similarly, learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the decision in the case of Anupam Port Cranes Corporation Limited (Supra). Paragraph No.13 of the said decision is reproduced hereunder : "[13] We are of the view that the aforesaid contentions taken by the respondents is misconceived. It is pertinent to note that in para 12 of the aforesaid decision rendered by this Court, this Court has recorded similar type of contentions which is taken in the present case in the Affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents, more particularly, paras 11(b) as well as 12(a) of the Affidavit-in-reply. In the present case as observed hereinabove, the concerned respondent himself issued Trade Notice dated 21.02.20218 in pursuance of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d upon the said Handbook of Procedure, more particularly, para 3.14 and has also submitted that this procedure more particularly para 3.14 being mandatory and the petitioner has clicked 'no' button instead of `yes.' 12.6. The issue involved in the present case is no more res integra in light of the decisions in the case of M/s. Banco Products (India) Limited (Supra) and Anupam Port Cranes Corporation Limited (Supra). There is no much resistance by learned advocate for the respondents regarding the ratio laid down by the coordinate bench of this Court in the decision M/s. Banco Products (India) Limited (Supra) & Anupam Port Cranes Corporation Limited (Supra). 12.7. In both the above decisions the issue and question was similar to the issue and question involved in the present case. 12.8. In our opinion, the main contention of the respondent authority is based on the Handbook of Procedure. In our considered opinion, the said provisions of Handbook of Procedure 2015-2020 is a procedure which enables the claimant to avail the benefits of the scheme. Procedures are handmade law and it is not a direction under the law. 12.9. In the present case, the petitioner has already mentioned i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
