TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (1) TMI 733
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The petitioners are a Company incorporated under the Companies Act having their office at Chowgule House, Mormugao Harbour, Goa. They are engaged in export of processed iron ore and are a recognised Trading House. 3. The petitioner filed an application for issue of additional licence for the licensing year AM 92 based on the export made during the preceding year AM 91 in respect of an item appearing in Appendix 12 of the Policy during AM 91. The export being processed iron ore. The claim of the petitioners was rejected on the ground that they were not entitled for the licence in question. The petitioners preferred second appeal but the same was also rejected on the ground that application for additional licence was time barred, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t discontinuation of the Policy and/or on the ground of delay in making the application for the said benefit. 7. Regarding the objection of the respondents that the application for additional licence or for 20% benefit was time barred, we find that this point was not open for the second appellate authority because while remanding the matter this Court had in its Order dated 13th September, 1995 in Writ Petition No. 269 of 1993 observed as under :- "Hence in the present case the Appellate Authority could not have rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground of limitation summarily. Even if it is barred by limitation, he could have considered granting of additional licence subject to 10% cut as mentioned above. Therefor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claim of the appellants on the ground of withdrawal of the Policy in 92-93 by Public Notice dated 29th February 1992. Counsel for the respondents relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Anant B. Timbodia v. Union of India and Others, reported in [1993 (63) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) = A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1272], where the question in controversy was as under :- "Whether the Cloves imported by the appellant fall within Item 169 in List 8 of Appendix 6 or fall within Paragraph 167 of Chapter XIII of the Import and Export Policy April, 1990 - March, 1993." 10. Even after going through this Judgment we are unable to find as to how it supports the objections raised by the respondents. To the contrary this case supports, though indirectly,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Policy which was in force at the time when the right accrued. Therefore, as stated above this Judgment is of no help to the respondents and to the contrary it before the petitioners. 13. For all these reasone the Judgment of the second appellate authority is liable to set aside and we pass the following Orders : 14. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clauses (a) and (b). The Order of the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade dated 12th January 1996 is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to pay to the petitioners the premium of Rs. 1,21,69,200/- with costs. Prayer Clause (a) and (b) : (a) a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other ap....