TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (1) TMI 125
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... out the particulars to be mentioned in the advance licence. One of the particulars to be mentioned is "(d) the value addition in accordance with the standard Input-Output norms published by means of a Public Notice or, in respect of items for which such norms have not been published, value addition as may be specified by the competent authority." Clause 52 expressly provides that "the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports may, on the recommendation of the Advance Licensing Committee (ALC) modify the norms or prescribe additional norms." Clause 59 prescribes the eligibility for applying for an advance licence. It says, "any merchant exporter or manufacturer exporter who holds an Importer-Exporter Code number, a specific export order/letter of credit and is in a position to realise the export proceeds in his own name may apply for duty free licences." Clause 60 prescribes that "value addition norms, as specified by means of a Public Notice issued in this behalf, shall apply to duty free licences". Clause 63 provides that a licence issued under the said scheme shall specify the export obligation which has to be fulfilled within the period specified therein. Clause 66 provides that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inding no response from the authorities, it approached the Calcutta High Court by way of a writ petition. 5.A learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition [Matter No. 3152 of 1993] [Since reported in 1994 (74) E.L.T. 210 (Cal.)] upholding the contention of the appellant. The respondents preferred a Letters Patent Appeal against the decision of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal but with a small alteration in the relief granted. The Division Bench held that the appellant shall be entitled to advance licences according to pre-revised norm with respect to the actual exports effected by it before September 25, 1992 but not for the exports effected thereafter. Aggrieved by the decision of Division Bench, both the appellant and the State have filed these appeals, insofar as it went against them. The only question in the appeals is whether the appellant is entitled to advance licences on the basis of the value addition norm obtaining prior to September 25, 1992 on the ground that it had applied therefor prior to the said date. 6.Sri P.V. Kapoor, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Export and Import Policy devising the Duty Exemption Sch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the said right depends upon the policy for the time being in force. The policy in vogue on the date of issue of licences alone governs the licences. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no allegation much less any finding either by the learned Single Judge or by the Division Bench that the authorities are guilty of any deliberate or undue delay in issuing the licences. The issuance of these licences is not a mechanical or a formal matter. The authorities have to verify the correctness of the various facts stated in the application and also have to satisfy themselves that the applicant satisfies the requirements of the Scheme and other applicable provisions of law before the licences are issued. 8.The first question in these appeals is whether a vested right accrued to the appellant for issuance of advance licences as per the value addition norm in vogue on the date of filing of the said applications the moment it made those applications and whether any subsequent change in policy effected before the issuance of licences, is not applicable to such licences. For answering this question, one has to look to the Policy itself, the material clauses of which have already been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted in advance of export - rather to enable the export. The theory of a vested right accruing to the applicant to get a licence as per the norms in force on the date of application is inconceivable in such a situation - unless, of course, the Policy itself says so. 9.It should be noticed that grant of licence is neither a mechanical exercise nor a formality. On receipt of the application, the authorities have to satisfy themselves about the correctness of the contents of the application. They also have to satisfy themselves that the application satisfies all the requirements of the scheme and the other applicable provisions of law, if any. In a country like ours, where abuse of such facilities is rampant, reasonable time has to be afforded to the authorities to process the application. [What is a reasonable time, of course, depends on the facts of each case. No hard and fast limit can be prescribed]. It is only after appropriate verification that the licence is granted. 10.We are, therefore, of the opinion that the contention that a vested right accrues to an applicant for issuance of advance licence on the basis of the norm obtaining on the date of application is unacceptable. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on. But in the absence of any plea in this behalf, it is not possible to hold that there has been any undue delay, procrastination or deliberateness on the part of the authorities in issuing the licences. There is no finding either by the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench to this effect. In such a situation, the mere fact that the appellant is likely to suffer some loss or prejudice - assuming that the said plea is factually true - cannot be a ground either for invoking the rule of promissory estoppel or to otherwise bind the Government to apply and adopt the value addition norm in force on the date of application. In this context, the observations of this Court in Pankaj Jain Agencies v. Union of India - [1994 (72) E.L.T. 805 (SC) = 1994 (5) SCC 198] are apposite. M.N. Venkatachaliah, CJ., speaking for the Court, held : "The third and the last submission is that the sudden and sharp increase of duty steeply puts up the petitioner's liability from Rs. 1,84,341 to Rs. 6,42,065 on these consignments and constitutes an unreasonable restriction on the petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. A tax, in particular, in the nature of duties of c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Import Licensing Policy in vogue in 1970-71. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition but was reversed by this Court on appeal. This Court held, "no case has been made out on the present record for a mandamus to the department to consider the respondent's application for import licence in terms of 1968-69 Policy. It is not possible on the existing material to conclude that the department is guilty of any undue laches or delay in dealing with the respondent's application which would justify the Court in granting the mandamus prayed for." It was also held that keeping the respondent's application pending until completion of its examination in the light of policy in vogue cannot be said to be unreasonable nor can the time taken in that behalf be characterised as undue delay. Above all, it was held, while emphasising the necessity of disposing of such applications with due expedition, that "an applicant has no absolute vested right to an import licence in terms of the policy in force at the time of his application because from the very nature of things at the time of granting the licence the authority concerned may often be in a better position to have ....