9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ronic Data Interchange (EDI), due to a technical difficulty, they inadvertently marked N in the reward item box instead of Y in the Reward. Consequently, these 28 shipping bills were not transmitted from customs to Respondent No. 2 server for grant of rewards - HELD THAT:- The Supreme Court in N.C. John case [ 2022 (8) TMI 240 - SC ORDER] has set out that where there was an inadvertent mistake of mentioning N instead of Y in the Column and the claimant had shown the intent to claim the MEIS benefit, which was granted by the High Court, in such a situation the Court sees no reason to interdict with the grant of such reward under the MEIS to the claimant. Also see MANGALATH CASHEWS, ANU CASHEW [ 2020 (3) TMI 1066 - KERALA HIGH COURT] Undisput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee brake-lining (CTH 6813 81 00) and Brake pads brake shoes (CTH 8708 30 00) and exported these items to various countries which have been informed in Table 1 of Appendix 3B of the MEIS as notified by Respondent No. 2 including to Denmark, UAE, Russia, Egypt, Kenya, Canada, Madagascar, U.S.A., Sri Lanka, Tunisia and Netherlands. The list of 28 shipping bills is annexed along with the present Petition. 3. It is the case of the Petitioner that in 28 shipping bills generated by Electronic Data Interchange (EDI), due to a technical difficulty, they inadvertently marked N in the reward item box instead of Y in the Reward. Consequently, these 28 shipping bills were not transmitted from customs to Respondent No. 2 server for grant of rewards. 4. L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been briefly heard in the matter. 8. The grievance of the Petitioner is that despite being eligible, it is not getting benefit under the MEIS in the sum of Rs. 15,17,526.42/-. It is the admitted case of the parties that in view of the inadvertent error, the shipping bills have not been processed. 8.1 Learned Counsel for the Respondents has opposed the grant of this MEIS reward. 9. The Supreme Court in N.C. John case has set out that where there was an inadvertent mistake of mentioning N instead of Y in the Column and the claimant had shown the intent to claim the MEIS benefit, which was granted by the High Court, in such a situation the Court sees no reason to interdict with the grant of such reward under the MEIS to the claimant. The re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
