TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (5) TMI 821
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eriod 1997-1998. The Petitioner also seeks the quashing of an order dated 23rd February 2000 passed by the Appellate Committee of Respondent No.1 informing the Petitioner that the appeal regarding the DEPB was not maintainable before that Committee. 2. The brief background to the present petition is that the Petitioner is a reputed exporting house and has been in the business of exporting and manufacturing leather garments and woven jackets since 1995. The Petitioner received a letter for supply of 10,000 pieces of jackets from a company in the United States of America (USA). Negotiations for that order commenced in February 1998 and it culminated in the Petitioner receiving a purchase order on 19th March 1998. Payment for the abo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....DEPB is 20% and the value cap is Rs. 200/- per piece on DEPB entitlement, it means that the maximum DEPB credit that an exporter of knitting and woven garments will get is Rs. 40/- per piece. 6. The Petitioner received the DEPB benefit at 23% on the first shipping bill dated 26th March 1998 through DEPB licence dated 18th February 1999 issued by the Respondents. However for all shipments made after 15th April 1998 rate of DEPB was 20% and the value cap Rs. 200/-. For the said shipments from 14th May 1998 to 26th May 1998, the Petitioner was issued DEPB at Rs. 40/- per piece. However, the Petitioner was refused grant of DEPB benefit at 23% against the balance nine shipping bills. 7. The Petitioner then represented to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have to be governed by the then prevailing policy. 9. By its letter dated 23rd July 1999 addressed to the Petitioner, the Respondent No.2, DGFT rejected the request on the ground that the exports in question were executed after 15th April, hence the rate of DEPB and value cap announced on 15th April 1998 were applicable. The appeal filed by the Petitioner against the said decision of the DGFT, was not entertained by the Appellate Committee. 10. In the counter affidavit filed to this petition, the Joint DGFT maintains that all exports that took place after the announcement of the Exim policy for 1998-1999 would be governed only by the amended policy. DEPB credit is calculated according to the rate applicable on the date ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hdrawal of the cash compensatory support with effect from 1st January 1979 by a circular dated 6th January 1991 would also apply to contracts entered into prior to 1st January 1979. Confirming the order of the learned Single Judge holding that the benefit could not be denied as far as the contracts already entered into prior to 1st January 1979, the Division Bench of this Court observed as under: "The Cash Compensatory Support was made available to the exporters only after verification of the facts of their firm contracts of exports and the actual exports made on the basis thereof. Therefore, there can be no element of doubt that the prices of the garments exported or to be exported under the Scheme took into consideration the allowance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the particular period. On the basis of the said promise, the petitioners made exports or entered into firm commitments to make exports at prices which would not have been viable to them in the absence of the cash credit assistance. Why was the Govt. giving assistance? Because it was aware that otherwise Indian exports will not be able to stand in the international market because of lower international price. The Govt. wanted to encourage exports and, therefore, provided the cash assistance. The promise of the Govt. to provide the assistance led the petitioners to enter into firm commitments which otherwise they would not have made. Based on the promise the petitioners have altered their position. The Govt. cannot be allowed to go back on it....