2010 (12) TMI 141

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....out the eligibility criteria as under:              "3.7.2 All Star Export Houses (including Status Holders as defined in para 3.7.1 of Exim Policy 2002-07) which have achieved a minimum export turnover in free foreign exchange of Rs. 10 crores in the previous licencing year are eligible for consideration under the Target Plus Scheme." 2. It is not in dispute that VPIPL is a Star Export House. Para 3.7.4 indicates who can apply under the Target Plus Scheme. It reads as under:               "3.7.4 Companies which are Star Export Houses as well as part of a Group company shall have an option to either apply as ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Industries is a "group company" of VPIPL for the purposes of Clause 3.7.4 of the FTP 2004-09. 4. The above clause incorporates by reference the definition of a "group company" as contained in Clause 9.28 of the FTP 2004-09 which reads as under:          "9.28 "Group Company" means two or more enterprises which directly or indirectly, are in a position to- (i) exercise twenty-six per cent or more of the voting rights in the other enterprise; or (ii) appoint more than fifty percent, of the members of the board of directors in the other enterprise; or For the group companies to claim benefits or have their exports counted for benefits to be claimed by another member of the group, the group company....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Target Plus Scheme. 7. This Court is unable to accept the above submissions. 8. It is plain that the definition of "group company" under para 9.28 of the FTP 2004-2009 envisages two "enterprises" one of which is in a position to exercise 26% voting rights in the other. While it is correct that the word used is "enterprise", certainly that word cannot mean an individual. Even if one were to accept the argument that of the two or more "enterprises", one could be a company and the other a firm, it must be shown that such firm holds shares in the company and is in a position to exercise 26% or more voting rights in the company. Factually in the present case there is no shareholding by the firm M/s Polypacks Industries in VPIPL. It is onl....