2019 (1) TMI 1291

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... For the Respondents : Sri. H. Jayakara Shetty, CGC, Sri. Y. Hari Prasad, CGC ORDER The petitioners have challenged the letter dated 15.02.2012 (Annexure A) issued by the respondent No.3 wherein it is stated that the first petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit of Advance Authorization. 2. The case of the petitioners is that second petitioner is the Project Authority developing Small Hydro Electric Power Project in Himachal Pradesh, India. The second petitioner entered into contract with the first petitioner for supply of materials for the Power Project. Subsequently, the petitioners have entered a second contract on 27.07.2010 (Annexure-C) for installation of plant and equipment. Pursuant to that contract, the first peti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....grieved by the same, petitioners have filed these petitions. 4. Sri B.G.Chidananda Urs, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the contract, first petitioner is importing various components from outside the country,assembling the same in India and making finished products and supplying the same to the second petitioner. Hence, the first petitioner was the 'manufacturer' as defined under para 9.36 of Foreign Trade Policy. Accordingly, first petitioner is entitled for the deemed export benefit. The first petitioner has furnished the relevant documents to show that he has imported the components and assembled the same in India. The respondents, without giving any notice and without considering the documents submitted by the....