TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 979
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....13-14 will be limited to a scrip of a value not exceeding Rs. 1 Crore per IEC. (ii) Claims in excess of this value will be subjected to greater scrutiny by Regional Authority." 2. As a result of the aforesaid amendment, paragraph 3.14.5.(c) relating to Incremental Export Incentivisation Scheme (IEIS) on annual basis would read as under:- ""3.14.5 Incremental Exports lncentivisation Scheme (lEIS) on annual basis" Entitlement (a) Objective of the Scheme is to incentivize incremental exports. (b) An IEC holder would be entitled for a duty credit scrip @ 2% on the incremental growth (achieved by the IEC holder) during the current year (for example, say for the period 01.04.2013 to 31.3.2014) compared to the previous year (for example, say for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.3.2013) on the FOB value of exports. Incremental growth shall be in respect of each exporter (IEC holder) without any scope for combining the exports for Group Company. (c) Incentive will be admissible only if the IEC holder has achieved growth in the financial year 2013-2014 vis a vis financial year 20122013. Quantum of benefit will be calculated on the incremental growth achieved subject to eligibility crit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2014 dated 25th September, 2013 have been quoted in italics and underlined). 3. The issue, which arises for consideration, is whether clause (i) incorporated in paragraph 3.14.5.(c) poses an upper limit of benefit under the Incremental Export Incentivisation Scheme for the year 2013-14 or in view of clause (ii), and on interpretation of paragraph 3.14.5.(c) claims in excess to this value would be subjected to greater scrutiny by the Regional Authority. 4. Stand of the petitioners herein is that amount of Rs. 1 crore specified in clause (i) was not the upper limit but the amount was specified for greater scrutiny by the Regional Authority. Respondents submit to the contrary. 5. By public Notice No.28/2009-2014(RE-2013) dated 25th September, 2013, amendments were made to the "Handbook of Procedure, Volume I for Incremental Exports Incentivisation Scheme" by inserting clause (e) and (f) to paragraph 3.8.3 which are reproduced as under:- "(e) Claims with growth in excess of the value and percentage specified under paragraph 3.14.4 (c)(i) and (ii) and paragraph 3.14.5 (c) (i) and (ii) of FTP, will be subjected to greater scrutiny by Regional Authority. Such scrutiny of the claim wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t paragraph 3.14.4.(c) was as under:- ""3.14.4 Incremental Exports lncentivisation Scheme Objective (a) The objective of the Scheme is to incentivize incremental exports. Entitlement (b) An IEC holder would be entitled for a duty credit scrip@ 2% on the incremental growth (achieved by the IEC holder) during the period 01.01.2013 to 31.3.2013 compared to the period from 01.01.2012 to 31.3.2012 on the FOB value of exports. Incremental growth shall be in respect of each exporter (IEC holder) without any scope for combining the exports for Group Company. (c) Incentive will be admissible only if the IEC holder has achieved growth in the financial year 2012-2013 vis a vis financial year 2011-2012. Quantum of benefit will be calculated on the incremental growth achieved subject to eligibility criteria given in para 3.14.4(d) of FTP 2009-14 . "(i) Benefit of Incremental Export Incentivisation Scheme for the last quarter of 2012-13 will be limited to 25% growth or Incremental growth of Rs. 10 crores in value, whichever is less. (ii) Claims in excess of this value will be subjected to greater scrutiny by Regional Authority. Eligibility Criteria (d) For the purpose of the scheme, expo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contemporaneous documents such as public speeches, policy documents, changes in the Handbook of Procedures and so on, such a restriction could be said to have been brought in by the 2013 Notification. We are mindful of the purpose and intent of the 2013 Notification. It is entirely salutary. None should receive unintended benefit from the 2012 Notification. Certain checks and measures are undoubtedly essential and the Department quite wisely has chosen the course of specifying a greater scrutiny for high value claims. There is nothing objectionable about any of this. Indeed, the Petitioners do not object to this. But this a far cry from an insistence that irrespective of the value of the incremental exports, those incentives must be restricted to a paltry Rs. 20 lakhs. There is no such restriction to be found in the 2012 Notification or in the 2013 Notification. We certainly cannot read it Into 2013 Notification. To do so would be to render, as Mr. Nankani says, clause (II) entirely 18 Exhibit "B", pp. 22-24 to WP No. 10437/2015, at page 24 redundant. If the cap was Rs. 20 lakhs, no exporter, no matter what is his incremental exports for the period in question, would ever submit an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re, the introduction of which would result in the imposition of an unwarranted restriction upon the rights of the beneficiaries or a class of beneficiaries. Jnan Ranjan Sen Gupta v Arun Kumar Bose, (1975) 2 SCC 526, paragraph 9, at p. 530. 32. This in turn means that apart from adopting a plain meaning approach to the Interpretation of the 2013 Notification, we must also adopt a purposive approach to its interpretation and construction. Mr. Rana's submissions do not tell us how a cap or limit or specifying the maximum benefit would advance the purpose-of the incentive scheme. All that these submissions tell us is that there was a concern that none should receive undue or unintended benefit. There can be no cavilling with that. But it surely cannot be suggested that any incentive above Rs. 20 lakhs is axiomatically and ipso facto an "unintended benefit". This is where an acceptance of Mr. Rana's submission takes us. But this was never the purpose nor the object of the 2012 Notification. The 2013 Notification did not (and could not) suggest it." 9. Similar view has been taken by the Calcutta High Court in W.P. No. 1355/2015, LGW Industries Limited Vs. Union of India And Oth....