SEIS entitlement claim may proceed before the designated authority despite challenge to the curtailing notification.

The petition challenged a notification curtailing SEIS benefits for the relevant financial year, but the Court did not decide the validity of that notification in the writ proceedings. It permitted the petitioner to apply to the designated authority for balance foreign exchange earnings and corresponding duty credit scrip entitlement, on the basis that the impugned notification was inapplicable. The authority was directed to decide any such application on its own merits within the stipulated time, with all contentions kept open.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be permitted to pursue a claim before the designated authority for the balance entitlement under the SEIS scheme notwithstanding the impugned notification, and whether the validity of the notification should be adjudicated in these proceedings.

Analysis: The petition challenged the notification curtailing SEIS benefits for the relevant financial year, but the Court declined to enter upon the merits of the rival contentions. In the peculiar facts, it found it appropriate to permit the petitioner to make an application to the designated officer for the balance foreign exchange earnings and corresponding duty credit scrip entitlement, asserting non-applicability of the impugned notification. The Court directed that any such application be decided on its own merits within the stipulated time, and expressly kept all contentions open.

Conclusion: The petitioner was allowed to pursue the claim before the designated authority, with no adjudication on the challenge to the impugned notification in the writ proceedings.

---