2008 (8) TMI 763

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Appellants i.e. Union of India to immediately release DEPB Credit to the Respondents in respect of the export of consignment of quartz wrist watches with gold bracelet. 2. Since identical issues are involved in these appeals, they are being disposed of by a common order. 3. Briefly stated, the material facts of these appeals are that in exercise of powers conferred under Para 4.11 of the Export and Import Policy, 1997-2002, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade notified following credit rates under the DEPB Scheme :- 36. Quartz analog clocks/time pieces with or without Alarm/Chime/Pendulum function and Quartz timing mechanism. 21.00% 37. Quartz analog watches? Digital electronic watches 21.00% Abo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....thus not eligible for benefit under the DEPB scheme.'                         (emphasis supplied) 7. The Appellants herein denied the benefits of the DEPB Scheme to the Respondent on the ground that export of quartz watches with gold straps was not what was envisaged at the time when 21% DEPB credit was notified for such exports. The Appellants submitted that the notifications dated 31st March, 1999 was merely clarificatory and not amendatory and consequently according to the Appellants the Respondents were not entitled to any credit for such exports. 8. Learned Single Judge of this Court while allowing ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aps. Even accepting that credit at the rate of 21% under the DEPB was not what was contemplated, benefit of the doubt must be given to the Petitioner. The wordings of Public Notice No. 1, even though it is dated 31-3-1999 in terms states that it would come into force from 1-4-1999. If it was merely clarificatory in nature this date would not have been mentioned. 7. The consignment had already been exported prior to 1-4-1999. The Petitioner was, therefore, fully entitled to the benefits of the Scheme as per its simple and straightforward interpretation. It is clear that this interpretation did not fall in line with what the Department intended and that is the reason why Public Notice No. 1 was issued. This, however, cannot have the e....