Allowed

Rswm Limited v. the Union of India, through the Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Oct 2018WP/9983/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Under Article 226, the High Court of Bombay quashed an order rejecting a petitioners application for duty credit under a specific notification. The Court held that earlier judgments in this Court established the entitlement, binding the respondents accordingly, and directed the authority to process the application.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 27th March, 2017 passed by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade was quashed and set aside. The petitioners application dated 20th January, 2017 was directed to be allowed w

Rswm Limited Vs the Union of India, through the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

9983-17-WP-3=.doc

¶2

Uday S. Jagtap

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 9983 OF 2017

RSWM Ltd.

.. Petitioners

v/s.

The Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents

¶9

Mr. V. Sridharan, Senior Cousnel with Mr. Prakash Shah, Jas Sanghavi, Akhilesh Kangasia i/b PDS Legal for the petitioners Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly a/w Mr. Anand Singh for the respondents

¶10

CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA &

¶11

RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J.J.

¶12

DATED : 29^th OCTOBER, 2018.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 27^th March, 2017 passed by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade. By the impugned order dated 27^th March, 2017, the petitioners' application dated 20^th January, 2017 for duty credit scrips @ 2% of the incremental growth done in exports during the period 1^st April, 2013 to 31^st March, 2014 stood rejected.

¶15

Mr. Sridharan, learned Counsel appearing in support of the petition points out that the issue urged in this petition stands concluded in favour of the petitioners by the decisions of this Court in JSW Steel

1 of 4

9983-17-WP-3=.doc

Uday S. Jagtap

Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 334 ELT 222 ; Welspun Global Brands Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition No.2157 of 2016) decided on 12^th June, 2017; UPL Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Writ Petition No.6472 of 2017) decided on 27^th June, 2017 and Ihsedu Agrochem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Writ Petition No.2548 of 2016) decided on 7^th March, 2016. Thus, the petition be allowed.

¶20

Mr. Jetly, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Revenue opposes grant of relief on the ground that so far as JSW Steel Ltd. (supra) is concerned, it dealt with the incentive scheme as provided in Notification No.44/(RE-2013)/2009-2014 dated 25^th September, 2013. This petition deals with the scheme for incentive benefit under Notification No.43/(RE-2013) 2009-14 dated 25^th September, 2013. In the above view, he submits that no relief should be granted to the petitioners.

¶21

We find that this Court in Welspun Global Brands Ltd. (supra) and UPL Ltd. (supra), in fact records in its order that the respondents are refusing to give the benefit of incentives as claimed by the petitioners under Notification No.43 (RE-2013) 2009-14 dated 25^th September, 2013. Identical to this case. This Court after considering the

2 of 4

9983-17-WP-3=.doc

Uday S. Jagtap

submissions made on behalf of the Revenue came to the conclusion in both the above cases that the benefit of Notification No.43/ (RE2013)/2009-14 dated 25^th September, 2013 is available to the petitioners therein, as the issue stands concluded by the earlier decision of this Court in JSW Steel Ltd. (supra). We specifically asked the respondents whether the order in Welspun Global Brands Ltd. (supra) and UPL Ltd. (supra) has been challenged by them before the Apex Court and the result of the same. However, the respondents are not in a position to respond to our query. It thus, appears that the respondents have accepted the decision of Welspun Global Brands Ltd. (Supra) and UPL Ltd. (supra). In any case, in the absence of respondents obtaining a stay of the order passed in Welspun Global Brands Ltd. (supra) and UPL Ltd. (supra) they are binding upon all the authorities within the State. This as held by the Supreme Court in East India Commercial Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, 13 ELT 1342.

¶26

In view of the fact that the issue stands concluded in favour of the petitioners by the decision of this Court in Welspun Global Brands Ltd. (supra) and UPL Ltd. (supra), the petitioners are entitled to the relief sought for by them in this petition.

3 of 4

9983-17-WP-3=.doc

Uday S. Jagtap

Therefore, the order dated 27^th March, 2017 passed by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner's application dated 20^th January, 2017 within a period of nine weeks from today.

¶31

(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J.)

¶32

(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)

¶33

4 of 4

Rswm Limited v. the Union of India, through the Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rswm Limited v. the Union of India, through the Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Centra Excise, Customs and Service Tax Silvassa Commissionerate Vs Twenty First Century Wire Rods Ltd.

The Commissioner of Cgst and Central Excise,Navi Mumbai Vs Fertin Pharma Research and Development India Pvt.Ltd

Deputy Chief Manager (Printing and Stationery) Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Mumbai-I

Jsw Steel Limited and Anr. Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Jsw Steel Coated Products Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

The Commissioner, Central GST and Ce, Daman Commissinoerate Vs Jaisingh Wires Pvt. Ltd.