Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) Affidavits filed in Court be taken on record. The petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondent authorities to consider an application dated January 12, 2015 made for disbursement of incentives under the provisions of Incremental Export Incentivization Scheme (IEIS) in particular reference to paragraph 3.14.5 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-2014 in respect of exports made by the first petitioner during the financial year 2013- 2014.
(2.) Learned advocate for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to the notification no. 3 dated April 14, 2013, which introduced amendments in Chapter 3 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-2014. He also draws the attention of the Court to notification no. 43 dated September 25, 2013 issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 read with paragraph 2.1 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009- 2014. He submits that, the notification dated September 25, 2013 cannot be read to have introduced a cap of Rs.1 Crore as sought to be interpreted by the department while considering any application for grant of disbursement of incentive under the subject scheme. He relies upon a decision of the Bombay High Court (JSW Steel Limited & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2016 334 ELT 222) and submits that, a similar issue was decided by the Bombay High Court in favour of the petitioner. He next refers to a decision dated April 12, 2018 rendered by the High Court of Delhi in W.P. (Civil) No. 5082 of 2017 (M/s. Welldone Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Directorate General of Foreign Trade & Anr.) and submits that, the decision of JSW Steel Limited was followed by the Delhi High Court and that, the regional authority was directed to examine the claim of the petitioner. The notification dated September 25, 2013 was interpreted to mean that, no ceiling was introduced by the same.
(3.) Learned advocate appearing for the respondents submits that, the notification dated September 25, 2013 introduces a limit of Rs.1 crore prospectively with effect from the date of such notification. The government is entitled to add, alter, modify and even rescind an incentive scheme prospectively. In support of such contention, she relies upon (Director General of Foreign Trade & Anr. Vs. Kanak Exports & Anr., 2016 2 SCC 226). She submits that, JSW Steel Limited relates to a quarterly scheme and that, the provisions of the quarterly scheme and the annual scheme being different, the ratio laid down in JSW Steel Limited are not attracted. So far as M/s. Welldone Exim Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, she submits that, the notification was not considered in the light of the submissions presently made. Consequently she submits that, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.;