AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 82
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls, the window against query with regard to intension of claiming MEIS benefit was mentioned as No instead of Yes. As a result, shipping bills were not electronically transmitted to DGFT portal for processing the MEIS script. Since Appellant could not claim their MEIS benefit due to non-transmission of shipping bill copies, Appellant requested the Respondent to allow amendment in the shipping bills to correcting the endorsement from No to Yes in the shipping bills. However the request was rejected and aggrieved by said order, an appeal was filed before this Tribunal. Thereafter this Tribunal as per Final Order No. 21016-21018/2019 dated 19.11.2019 held that:- "7. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the Commissioner has failed to notice that the appellants have declared their intention to claim MEIS benefits in two cases out of three cases, the shipping bills which have been produced on record. The only lapse on the part of the appellant was that they have mentioned in the reward column as 'N' instead of 'Y', which is only a procedural defect. Further, I find that otherwise the appellant is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... except on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence at the time the goods were cleared etc. Therefore, though the time limit is not a circumstance for outright rejection of an application still, the Officer or, for that matter, the Tribunal verifies the request for amendment on the prescription covered by the Proviso to Section 149 of the Act. We refrain from taking up further consideration on merits, as the order of remand, in view of our findings, is restricted. For the above reasons, we are satisfied that the order under appeal needs to be set aside and is set aside. The matter is remanded to the CESTAT for fresh consideration, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment". 4. Learned Counsel submits that during the period from 29.10.2015 to 30.03.2016, in Appeal No. C/20532/2019, appellant have exported 123 consignments of goods manufactured in the SEZ Unit by filing the Shipping Bills for export. As an incentive for the exports done and the foreign exchange earned, the appellant have claimed the export incentive under MEIS (Merchandise Export Incentive Scheme) against all the 123 Shipping Bills. The Regional Author....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of C/20530/2019, the Appellant is a SEZ unit and it is governed by the Special Economic Zone Act and Rules & Regulations made therein under. Further at the relevant time, there was no examination of cargo under whatsoever scheme was prescribed under Rule 46 of Special Economic Zone. Physical examination of the cargo exported from SEZ unit under MEIS scheme was incorporated only on 19.09.2018 vide Notification dated 19.09.2018. Learned Counsel further submits that in appellants case, the amendment is sought on the Bills of entries where documents such as Invoice, Customs Endorsed Shipping Bill, Let Export Order, Packing List etc. were in existence at the time when the goods were physically exported. It is an admitted fact that the goods are eligible for the MEIS benefit/incentive and hence, the MEIS scrips were issued by the competent authority. There were no norms of examination for the export of goods from SEZ during the relevant period. The Department has no dispute that the export goods are something other than the one declared in the Shipping Bills. They too have no case that the appellant has exported goods other than the one authorized under the Letter of Approval/Letter of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounsel also relied following decisions:- i. Commissioner of Customs (Port) Vs. Asian Tea and Exports Ltd. - 2025 (394) E.L.T. 562 (S.C.) ii. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. Union of India -(2025) 150 GSTR - 400/2024 SCC ONLINE BOM 3565. iii. Portescap India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 2021 (376) E.L.T. 161 (Bom.) iv. Technocraft Industries (India) Ltd. v. Union of India 2023 (384) E.L.T. 293 (Bom.) 10. Learned Authorized Representative (AR) reiterated the finding in the impugned order and submits that as per Section 129C (4) of the Customs Act, 1962, the present appeal fall under the jurisdiction of Division Bench. Hence requested to post appeal before the Division Bench. As regarding the issue on merit, Learned AR further submits that Section 149 was amended and though there was no time limit prescribed, it has been consistently held that it must be within reasonable time. The Learned AR relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals (1989 (42) E.L.T 515). Learned AR also draw our attention to the Circular No.36/2010-Cus dated 23.09.2010 where three months limitation was prescribed at the relev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elay, they are empowered to amend such amendment even up to two year after the relevant date of export. In Appeal No. C/20532/2019, shipping bill dated 29.10.2015 to 31.03.2016 related to 123 exports are involved and the request for the amendment was made on 22.05.2017. Similarly in Appeal No. C/20930/2019, two shipping bills dated 28.07.2017 and one shipping bill dated 07.09.2017 are involved and request for amendment was made on 02.04.2019. 15. Further I find that as per the Circular No. 36/2010-Cus dated 23.09.2010, it is specifically stated that "the conversion may be permitted in accordance with provisions of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 on a case to case basis merit provided Commissioner of Customs if satisfied, on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence of the goods at the time of export that the goods were eligible for the export promotion schemes to which conversion has been requested". Further in the present cases, there is no allegation that the goods exported by the Appellants are not eligible for the benefit of the scheme. Even the Regional Authority of DGFT had issued the MEIS scrips against all the 123 Shipping Bills after satisfying that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nciple enunciated that beneficial schemes must be construed liberally and that procedural lapses, once rectified, cannot be allowed to defeat substantive rights. 14. These decisions, read together, demonstrate a consistent judicial approach that distinguishes between procedural formalities and substantive entitlements. The scheme under Chapter 3 of the FTP is a beneficial one, intended to reward exporters. Once exports are genuine and fall within the notified category, inadvertent mistakes of procedure cannot be treated as fatal, especially where they are corrected under statutory authority. The rejection by the PRC, bereft of reasons and passed without hearing, falls foul of the principles of natural justice. The High Court's view that the appellant may proceed against the customs broker fails to address the statutory entitlement which accrues to the exporter under the scheme. Administrative technology must aid, not obstruct, the implementation of the law. 15. In light of the above discussion, the appeal deserves to be allowed. The judgment of the High Court dated 2-8-2021 is set aside. The rejection by the Policy Relaxation Committee is quashed. The responde....