Page 168 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

150 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

Learned Single Judge specifically noted that, in the shipping bill produced that
the writ petitioners have specifically mentioned that ‘WE INTEND TO CLAIM
REWARD UNDER MEIS’. Therefore it was found that the denial of the claim to
avail the benefit could not have been done in a mechanical manner, merely be-
cause there was a technical lapse on the part of the exporter in not checking a
particular box in the web portal; more so when there was sufficient indication in
other details entered therein about the intention of the exporter to claim the re-
wards. Therefore the writ petitions were disposed of by directing the appellants
as well as the Director General of Foreign Trade to consider the claim of the writ
petitioners for export benefit, afresh, in the light of the observations contained in
the judgment and to the grant export benefits, if on an overall consideration of
the details furnished by the writ petitioners the intention to claim the benefit of
the MEIS was seen manifested at the time of export. The claim was directed to be
considered afresh within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy
of the judgment, after hearing the writ petitioners. In the meanwhile, the Cus-
toms Authorities were directed to issue necessary ‘No Objection Certificate’ in
favour of the writ petitioners for processing the claim afresh.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that, since the writ pe-
titioners have not checked the ‘Yes’ Box in the relevant column, indicating their
intention with respect to claiming of the benefit under MEIS, necessary verifica-
tion of the export consignment was not done at the relevant time; and that verifi-
cation of the consignment is not possible as of now. We are not persuaded to ac-
cept the said contention. Even if there exists no claim for the benefit under the
MEIS, naturally there will be physical verification with respect to the goods con-
signed by the exporter. Therefore the details of the shipping as well as the neces-
sary verification preceding the export were already done at that time would
clearly indicate the identity of the goods exported. If the identity of the goods
exported would reveal that the goods exported are those goods with respect to
which the benefit under MEIS is allowable, there is no necessity for further phys-
ical verification for deciding the question of allowing the claim.
4. Learned counsel further pointed out that, by virtue of a Circular is-
sued by the Director General of Foreign Trade, instruction was given to allow
such claims in cases where the exporters had omitted to tick ‘Yes’ in the portal,
only for a limited period of six months from the date of introduction of the
Scheme. We do not find any logic in putting such a limitation. As already found
by the Learned Single Judge, the intention was explicit from other details up-
loaded in the portal and also from the documents relating to the shipping. There-
fore, the omission seems to have been quite inadvertent. There is no justification
in denying the claim, based on such an inadvertent omission. In the matter of
condoning such an omission, there cannot be a discrimination between exporters
who made the claim within six months and those who have raised the claim after
six months of introduction of the Scheme.
5. Under the above mentioned circumstances, we do not think that
there exists any illegality, error or impropriety committed by the Learned Single
Judge in allowing the writ petitions. Consequently the above writ appeals fail
and the same are hereby dismissed.
_______

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  168