TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1148
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....keens/Mixtures etc. It is provided with IEC No. 0391167677 by the Director General of Foreign Trade for the above referred period concerning its export through Mumbai jurisdiction. Appellant had also received drawback under the Drawback Scheme at the rate applicable under AIR. Vide its letter dated 26.07.2022, Appellant had sought for conversion of 2463 shipping bills from Drawback Scheme (DBK) to Duty Free Import Authorisation Scheme (DFIA). After personal hearing was granted to the Appellant on 13.03.2025 wherein Appellant had made it's submission in favour of such conversion with reference to judgments of various High Courts and this Tribunal, inter-alia expressing that no time limit has been prescribed for such conversion of shipping bill from one scheme to another, Appellant was allowed by the Commissioner to convert only 696 in total, in respect of two sets of bills submitted through Annexure- 1 and Annexure-2 on the ground that those were filed 3 years of shipment and no conversion was allowed in respect of rest 1767 shipping bills. Appellant is before us assailing legality of the order of rejection concerning conversion of shipping bills. 3. During course of hearing of app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... shipping bills even for 4 years and beyond were held to be valid conversion since Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 has prescribed no time limit for such conversion, for which he pleaded for setting aside the order of rejection passed by the Commissioner in respect of shipping bills beyond 3 years of age. 4. Per contra, learned Authorised Representative Mr. D.S. Maan with reference to Auto Tech Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-IV, as reported in 2022 (380) ELT 364 (Tri.-Chennai) read with judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of GOI Vs. M/s. Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals, reported in (1989) (42) ELT 515 (SC) submitted that it has been clearly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the absence of any period of limitation, a reasonable period is to be taken by every Authority, which would depend on the facts of every case and this Tribunal vide above referred decision of Auto Tech Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. had given a findings that provisions in the Limitation Act as contained in Article 137 of its Schedule would be considered as reasonable time for filing an application under Section 149 of the Customs Act, for which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oncurring judgment of Hon'ble Justice Raveendran). It was further held in the said judgment, with reference to para 22 of the decision in Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. T.P. Kunhaliumma, [(1976) 4 SCC 634] delivered by a Three Judges Bench that Article 137 of Limitation Act, 1963 will apply to any petition or application filed under any Act in a Civil Court and therefore, in M.P. Steel decision it was ultimately concluded in para 28 that Suits, Appeals or Applications as are referred to in the Schedule are only related to Courts and not to Quasi-Judicial bodies or Tribunal and therefore, only when a Suit, Appeal or Application of the description in the Schedule is filed in a Court under a Special Local Law, Section 29(2) gets attracted. 5.1 From the above discussion it can be concluded without any doubt that Section 29(2) that deals with saving clause or Article 137 prescribing 3 years limitation for filing an application are not applicable to the proceedings initiated before a Quasi-Judicial Authority or Tribunal, for which a specific time limit can't be imputed to conversion of a shipping bill as Section 149 itself has not provided any such time limit and also categorica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....troduced in USA post independence, as being a contractual obligation to be carried by the State in favour of its subjects, while other benefits of Export Promotion (EP) Schemes launched by the Government of India and implemented through the Director General of Foreign Trade of the Ministry of Commerce, which are being implemented under Customs and other notifications and therefore, para 3(e) of the Circular No. 36/2010-Cus. that prohibits, though arbitrarily, conversion from one shipping bill to another, after availing benefit of the Export Promotion Scheme would not be applicable to Appellant's case since it is a conversion from drawback scheme to EP Scheme namely DFIA. EP Schemes are specifically enumerated in para 4 of Circular No. 36/2010-Cus. as Advance Authorisation, DFI, DEPB, reward schemes etc. and in the same paragraph duty drawback is specifically held to be applicable to free shipping bills and not to any EP Schemes. Therefore, we are of the view that though drawback is a benefit given to the exporter, it is not covered directly under Export Promotion Scheme of the DGFT, Ministry of Commerce. To say it otherwise, EP Scheme is a policy provided by the Government whereas ....