Page 143 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

2020 ] GOKUL OVERSEAS v. UNION OF INDIA 53

made beyond three months from the date of the LET export order and hence, the
same is time-barred in view of the Circular No. 36/2010-Cus., dated 23-9-2010.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
20. Mr. Dhaval Shah, Learned Advocate for the petitioner, submitted
that rejection of the request of the petitioner to extend benefits under the MEIS
on the technical ground of delay is ex facie illegal. It was submitted that the peti-
tioner is eligible for the benefits under the MEIS subject to compliance of all the
requirements prescribed under Chapter 3 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-20.
The petitioner did not declare its intention to claim rewards under the MEIS
while filing shipping bills; however, on realising such mistake, the petitioner
immediately approached the concerned authorities for amending the shipping
bills and clarified its intention, but it was not considered on the ground of delay.
20.1 It was submitted that there are no restrictions in Chapter 3 of the
Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-20 to claim benefits under the MEIS and therefore, the
time limit imposed for claiming such benefit is not justified.
20.2 It was submitted that the respondents are not justified in not ex-
tending the benefit of the MEIS to the petitioner on the ground that prior to 1-6-
2015 the shipping bills did not have the ‘Declaration of Intent’ to claim benefits
under the MEIS. It was submitted that the respondents have failed to appreciate
the fact that for EDI shipping bills, the Board has extended the date of correction
in the shipping bills if, by mistake, exporters have ticked ‘N’ instead of ‘Y’ for
claiming benefits under the MEIS, whereas no such circular/instructions have
been issued for Non-EDI shipping bills. It was contended that if the said condi-
tion can be regularised or extended for EDI shipping bills also, then there is no
reason for not extending the same benefit to Non-EDI shipping bills and that
such discrimination between online system and manual system cannot be per-
mitted.
20.3 It was urged that the respondents have accepted that the goods
have been exported and the said goods are eligible under the MEIS and also that,
for the subsequent periods, benefit under the scheme has also been allowed. It
was submitted that therefore, merely on account of not claiming benefit under
the scheme at the time of filing the shipping bills, the petitioner should not be
deprived from the benefits under the scheme if the conditions of the Foreign
Trade Policy, 2015-20 have, otherwise, been complied with.
20.4 It was contended that the condition of declaration in the shipping
bills is procedural in nature inasmuch as the shipping bills are filed with all the
relevant documents and the concerned authorities have permitted clearance of
the goods after examination of all these documents. Therefore, non-declaration of
the intent to avail benefits under the MEIS cannot come in the way of the peti-
tioner in claiming such benefits. It was submitted that the intention of the Legis-
lature to introduce the scheme is to boost exports and therefore, the respondent
authorities are not justified in adopting such a rigid stand.
20.5 It was further submitted that since the MEIS was introduced in the
month of April 2015, the petitioner was not familiar with the procedure and
therefore, due to mistake, declarations were not made in the shipping bills.
However, subsequently, the petitioner was able to establish that it is, even oth-
erwise, eligible to claim benefits under the scheme and, therefore, merely be-
cause the petitioner had not mentioned the declaration on the shipping bills,
would not be a valid ground to deny the benefits thereof.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  143