TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 667
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 30, 2019 of the Policy Relaxation Committee (for short, 'PRC') which also rejected petitioner's application to relax/condone delay in filing such application. 2. The Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14 deals with Reward/Incentive scheme in the DGFT. By a notification dated December 28, 2012, provisions relating to Incremental Export Incentivisation Scheme (IEIS) were introduced in Chapter III of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14 in terms of paragraph 3.14.4. The Scheme inter alia provided for the Entitlement, Eligibility Criteria etc. It also made special provisions covering exports to USA, Europe and some Asian countries. 3. By public notices issued in the year 2012-13, there were additions made in the Handbook of Procedures Volume I incorporat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... valid, for want of the prescribed fee being paid/submitted by the petitioner. Further, admittedly the prescribed fee was not paid/ remitted by the petitioner before March 31, 2016 being the cut-off date. The petitioner therefore, again made an attempt on April 7, 2016 to fill up an e-application. In paragraph 15 of the petition, the petitioner has averred that the petitioner had to "key in all the details again" in the E-com application alongwith the fees on April 7, 2016. 7. The petitioner's application dated April 07, 2016 was responded by the Foreign Trade Development Officer vide letter dated May 5, 2016, titled as "Deficiency Letter", informing the petitioner that the petitioner's application (for quarterly period January 1, 2012 to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as the petitioner was unable to apply within time limit due to decline by the DGFT website. Another representation was addressed to the PRC by the petitioner on May 14, 2018. 12. The PRC granted a personal hearing to the petitioner and by its impugned decision dated January 30, 2019, considering the petitioner's case, found no merit in the petitioner's case and rejected the same. 13. Mr.Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner in assailing the impugned rejection of the petitioner's application would submit that the petitioner had acted diligently, as due to technical issues, a complete application along with the fees could not be submitted by the petitioner before the cut-off date which was March 31, 2016. Mr.Shah would not dispute that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unsel for the parties. We have also perused the record. 16. At the outset, we observe that the petitioner did not comply with the time lines to submit a complete application which was to be filed by March 31, 2016. The petitioner was informed of the rejection of its application on May 05, 2016. The petitioner although attempted to give justification by its letters as noted by us, however the fact remains that the petitioner approached the PRC for the first time by an application dated November 21, 2017, which was almost 19 months after rejection of its application being deficient. The petitioner's approach of merely writing letters after the decision dated May 05, 2016 cannot be construed as an assertion of its rights in the manner known t....