Page 138 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

48 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

by the respondents with a one line order i.e., “it is time-barred”. Rejections have
been placed before this Court.
14. The Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents justified the said
rejection stating that a new starting period of limitation cannot be envisaged by
the petitioner. According to the Learned Counsel, the petitioner herein has not
even applied seeking concession in the first instance. Thereafter, the Learned
Counsel also stated and it is also mentioned in the counter affidavit that they
have not even applied from the date of the Judgment of the Supreme Court. It is
further stated that the period of limitation cannot be granted for the petitioner.
15. The petitioner, as a manufacturer of Valves and such other items,
for export them, claimed the benefits under Duty Scrip under the Focus Product
Scheme of FTP 2009-2014. The Trade Policy as on the date as extracted above was
for all parts of the bicycle.
16. There were several representations by various exporters for inclu-
sion of valves and such other items. But they were specifically rejected by the
respondents. Thereafter this reject was challenged before the Gujarat High Court
wherein the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court clarified the aspect and struck
out the rejections. The petitioners before the Gujarat High Court became entitled
for such concession.
17. The petitioner in this writ petition is directly interested in the ratio
of the Judgment of the Gujarat High Court. A challenge was taken up before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court but the Hon'ble Supreme Court has rejected the appeal
and also dismissed the Review Application.
18. When the appeal has been rejected, a duty was cast on the respond-
ents to issue a further Trade Notice, by withdrawing the earlier Trade Notice. By
the earlier Trade Notice, it had been mentioned that valves and other such items
are not permissible for seeking export concession. Now by the third notice, they
have specifically stated that such items are also eligible for concession in toto.
Though on paper, there is no addition or modification, there has been a substan-
tial change in the Policy. Therefore, the petitioner is well within their rights to
seek a concession within a period of six months from the date of the Trade No-
tice. The rejection of the respondents on the ground that the applications are
“time-barred” cannot stand the scrutiny of this Court. The petitioner seeks a con-
cession which the respondents have extended by issuing a third notice, stating
that valves and such other items are also eligible for concession. That Trade No-
tice was issued only on 7-6-2018. Well within the period of six months, the peti-
tioner had made applications seeking concession. Still the respondents had re-
jected the same as time-barred, that order will have to be necessarily interfered
with.
19. With the above observation, the writ petition is allowed. The re-
spondents are directed to reconsider the application already filed and they are
otherwise in order, consider the same by merits. Consequently, connected Mis-
cellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

_______

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  138