Page 92 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

626 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

CASES CITED
Biswanath Poddar v. Archana Poddar — (2001) 8 SCC 187 — Relied on ....................................... [Para 26]
C.I.T. v. Straw Board Manufacturing Co. — AIR 1989 SC 1490 — Relied on ................................. [Para 26]
Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioners — (1921) 1 KB 64 — Relied on ....... [Para 27]
Divisional Level Committee v. Sahu Stone Crushing Industries — (1998) 8 SCC 435
— Relied on .................................................................................................................................... [Para 26]
Hemalata Gargya v. C.I.T. — (2003) 9 SCC 510 — Relied on ............................................................ [Para 26]
Hemraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave — 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 350) (S.C.) — Relied on ........................... [Para 26]
Janki Sugar Mills v. Commissioner — (1979) 1 SCC 524 — Relied on ............................................. [Para 26]
Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan — AIR 1967 SCC 1074 — Relied on .......................................... [Para 26]
Nokia Solutions and Networks India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
— W.P. (C) No. 6800 of 2013, decided by Delhi High Court — Distinguished ... [Paras 11, 12, 13]
Oblum Electrical Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector — 1997 (94) E.L.T. 449 (S.C.)
— Relied on .................................................................................................................................... [Para 26]
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Babu Ram — AIR 1961 SCC 751 — Relied on ......................................... [Para 26]
Yum Restaurants (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
— 2015 (320) E.L.T. 781 (Del.) — Distinguished ..................................... [Paras 11, 12 13, 15, 19, 34]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC with Rakesh Mudgal
and Ashish Rai, Advocates, for the Appellant.
S/Shri Pramod K. Rai, Deepak Anand and Ms. Hem-
lata Rawat, Advocates, for the Respondent.
[Judgment per : D.N. Patel, CJ (Oral)]. - CM APPL. Nos. 25323/2015 (for
condonation of delay of 94 days in filing) and 25324/2015 (for condonation of
delay of 82 days in refiling) in LPA No. 770/2015 :
CM APPL. Nos. 42999/2019 (for condonation of delay of 181 days in filing) and
43002/2019 (for condonation of delay of 15 days in refiling) in LPA No. 631/2019
Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the reasons stat-
ed in these applications, there are reasonable reasons for condonation of delay.
We, therefore, condone the delay in filing and re-filing of the Letters Patent Ap-
peals. These applications are allowed and disposed of.
LPA Nos. 770/2015 and 631/2019
1. These Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred by the original re-
spondents. WP(C) No. 6640/2015 and WP(C) No.1663/2012 were preferred by
the respondents and the same were allowed by the Learned Single Judge vide
orders dated 14th January, 2019 and 27th January, 2015.
2. The respondents, in these two appeals, are E.I. Dupoint India Private
Limited, and its Manager-Indirect Tax, Mr. Vineet Bose, respectively.
3. Respondent No. 1, on 5th February, 2009, was issued scrips/licenses,
under the “Served From India Scheme” (hereinafter referred to as “SFIS”), which
was one of the export promotion schemes, available under the Foreign Trade Policy, in
terms whereof importers could, subject to fulfilment of the conditions stipulated,
avail the benefit of exemption, either in whole or in part, from the payment of Customs
duty, on the goods imported by them.
4. The SFIS scrips, issued to Respondent No.1, were in terms of the SFIS
as contained in the 2004-2009 Foreign Trade Policy (hereinafter referred to as
“FTP 2004-2009”).
5. At this juncture, certain relevant provisions, relating to the SFIS, as
contained in the FTP 2004-2009, and in the FTP 2009-2014 (under which no bene-
fits were sought by Respondent No. 1) merit reproduction, thus :
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  92