9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... March 2020, and later until January 2021, and thereafter until 28th February 2022), the DGFT is unable to process the applications filed by the Petitioner under the MEIS. This is the sole ground on which the above Petition is opposed. We find this argument to be without any merit. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner had, as far back as on 27th April 2018, made an application to the Commissioner to amend its 50 shipping bills in terms of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. When the applications for amendment for shipping bills were made by the Petitioner, the MEIS was very much in existence and had not lapsed or expired. In such a situation, the benefit under the scheme cannot denied to the Petitioner. Besides, if the MEIS coming to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LABAWALLA & SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ. For the Petitioner: Mr. Prakash Shah, Senior Advocate a/w Jas Sanghavi & Ananta Khandait i/b. PDS Legal. For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: Adv. Jitendra B. Mishra a/w Vikas Salgia, Ashutosh Mishra, Rupesh Dubey. For the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6: Adv. Satyaprakash Sharma a/w Shrikar Deshpande. P.C. 1. Although the above Writ Petition is shown under the caption "For Directions", with the consent of parties, we have heard it finally. Hence, we issue Rule. The Respondents waive service. With the consent of parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The above Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to forthwith accept the amendment made by Respondent No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther natural essential oil [for short the "said goods"] and filed 845 shipping bills and claimed benefit under the MEIS. In the Electronic Data Interchange [for short "EDI"], the Default setting for claiming export promotion benefits under the MEIS is "N"- meaning No. To claim the benefit of MEIS, the party is required to change the default setting and select "Y" - meaning Yes. In 50 of these 845 bills, inadvertently, the Petitioner's Customs broker and staff did not uncheck the "N" box. Once the aforesaid mistake was realized, on 27th April 2018, the Petitioner requested the Deputy Commissioner [Respondent No. 6] to amend the said 50 shipping bills in terms of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. Due to the inaction on the part of the Dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the CESTAT. Since Respondent No. 5 took no action on these letters, the Petitioner filed an application under Rule 41 of the CESTAT Rules for implementing the order of the said Tribunal. On 27th June 2024, Respondent No. 6 informed the Tribunal that they have complied with its order and amended the 50 shipping bills on ICEGATE. Accordingly, the CESTAT was pleased to dispose of the application filed by the Petitioner [under Rule 41] as being rendered infructuous. 9. Meanwhile, being aggrieved by the order of the CESTAT dated 15th December 2022, the Customs Department filed an appeal in this Court being Customs Appeal No. 26 of 2024. This Appeal was filed on 22nd August 2023 and ultimately withdrawn on 7th August 2024. In the interregnum, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad, as far back as on 27th April 2018, made an application to the Commissioner to amend its 50 shipping bills in terms of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner did absolutely nothing on those applications [for amendment of shipping bills] for almost three years. It is in these circumstances, that the Petitioner had to approach this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 518 of 2021. It is only when this Court [vide its order dated 16th November 2021], directed the Deputy Commissioner to decide the applications of the Petitioner, that the Deputy Commissioner of Customs rejected the Petitioner's request, for amending the said 50 shipping bills. This order of the Deputy Commissioner was challenged before the CESTAT, which finally a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to expiry of all benefits under the scheme, including those that had accrued during the life of the scheme, there would have been no need to issue the advisory dated 11th April 2023. 12. We also find that the issue in the present case is covered by two decisions of this Court in the case of Technocraft Industries (India) Limited Vs. Union of India and Others [2023 (384) ELT 293 and in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs. Union of India and Others [2024 (11) TMI 808]. Though in these matters, the issue of limitation arising out of the expiry of the MEIS was not squarely raised, the facts in this case would show that though the scheme had expired, reliefs were granted to the Petitioner. In fact, the DGFT had not even raised the issue o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
