TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1700
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... refund the monetary equivalent of Scrip along with interest for the benefit of a vested right of the Petitioner for unduly long period of 5 years; and in the alternative; i. At least refund of the actual custom duties paid by the Petitioner for the capital goods imported for providing services along with interest. ii. Issuance of SFIS scrip for tine residual claim established by this Hon'ble High Court after deduction of the aforesaid refund, in a form and manner and with a longer validity date fully compatible with the contemporary policy and Customs notifications, so that the Petitioner is able to meaningfully utilize the scrip. b. Issue a Writ of Prohibition, or a Writ in the nature of Prohibition, or any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9-14). There was a material difference between the language of the provisions relating to the SFIS under FTP 04-09 and FTP 09-14. Whereas the SFIS under the FTP 04-09 was applicable to "all service providers", the benefits of the SFIS scheme under FTP 09-14 were available only to "Indian Service Providers". Thus, the principal controversy involved in those petitions was whether the subsidiaries of foreign entities could be considered as Indian Service Providers. This Court had noted that there was no dispute with regard to the applicability of the SFIS scheme under FTP 04-09 in so far as the petitioners herein are concerned. 4. The relevant extract of the said decision (W.P.(C) 7011/2012 captioned Yum Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. and Anr v. Uni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...." 5. Insofar as the applicability of FTP 09-14 to Indian Subsidiaries of Foreign Entities is concerned, this Court did not accept the contention of the respondents that such companies were excluded from the benefit of the SFIS Scheme under FTP 09-14. Notwithstanding, the decision of this Court, the respondents did not provide the benefit of the SFIS to the petitioners. 6. The Bombay High Court in Shree Naman Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India : 2015 (326) E.L.T. 513 (Bom.) has taken a different view with regard to the applicability of the SFIS under the FTP 09-14. This Court is informed that the said issue is now pending before the Supreme Court in view of the divergence of the opinion between this Court and the Bombay High Court.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioners' claim for the relief as sought by it in this petition. He, however, states that an appeal against the common order passed in W.P.(C) 7011/2012 captioned Yum Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. and Anr v. Union of India & Ors. and other connected matters, decided on 27.01.2015 is pending before the Division Bench of this Court. However, he does not controvert the submission that the subject matter of the appeal, essentially, relates to the provisions of the SFIS Scheme under FTP 09-14 (and not FTP 04-09). 9. In view of the above, there can be no dispute that the petitioners are entitled to the benefits as were granted to the petitioners in terms of the SFIS scrips issued to the petitioners on 05.02.2009 (SFIS Licence No.0501235856 to 0510235....