TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 826
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner had filed two bills of entry as Shipping Bill Nos.9415639 and 9415497, dated 03.01.2020. It is submitted that by filing the bill of entry by the petitioner stated that no for yes as aforesaid benefits. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had approached the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Custom for amending the above mentioned bills, who by a communication/Certificate dated 07.06.2021, bearing Reference No.VIII/48/14/2021-KERN ICD has certified that if the petitioner is eligible for the benefit and MEIS Scheme, the request of the petitioner may be considered favourably. The learned counsel for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respondents points out that though the last of the shipping bills is dated 02.01.2018, the representation of the petitioner for grant of MEIS is dated 04.10.2019, one year and 9 months thereafter. According to him, the claim is thus substantially belated. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this does not appear to have been a ground on which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by either the original or the appellate authority. 8.It appears that the petitioner has been inspired by an order passed by this Court in a writ petition granting benefit in similar situations . It would be too harsh to state in such circumstances, specifically in the light of the facts as noticed by me above i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and the decision of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD).No.16328 of 2020. In the said writ petition, the petitioner appears to challenged the order of the Commissioner of Customs rejecting the request for amending the shipping bill and to issue "No Objection Certificate" to avail the benefits of MEIS scheme under the Foreign Trade Policy. 7. A same what identical issue came up for consideration at the Principal Bench in W.P.No.12188 of 2020, which was filed by Wabco India Private Limited Vs Union of India and others vide order, dated 31.01.2022, after considering the letter of judgment, the relevant portion reads as under:- 11. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....per DoR Notification, except items listed in Appendix 3A. (ii) Payment of Central excise duties on domestic procurement of inputs or goods, (iii) Deleted (iv) Payment of Basic Customs Duty and Additional Customs Duty specified under Sections 3(1), 3(3) and 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and fee as per paragraph 3.18 of this policy. 14. The petitioner herein has failed to exercise the option in all the shipping bills unaware of the changes in the procedure. Though the Government has issued clarification dated 09.10.2015 in Public Notice No.40/2015-2020 to the effect that Paragraph 3.01 of the Foreign Trade Policy [2015-20] does not allow manual feeding of EDA shipping bill details and follow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....exporter incentive and was not dis-entitled to the same, such benefit cannot be denied. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the third respondent has to go as such export incentives cannot be denied on account of procedural lapse. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the third respondent is quashed and the case is remitted back to the respondents to re-examine the issue as to whether the petitioner had indeed exported and was entitled to the exporter incentive under the aforesaid scheme, but for the lapse of not clicking the correct option in the System/Web Portal. 19. If the petitioner's case is not falling under any other exceptions provided in the aforesaid scheme, in terms of Paragraph 3.06 of ....