DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) Affidavits filed in Court be taken on record.
(2.) 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.
(3.) 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 reported at (2016) 334 ELT 222 JSW Steel Limited and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. 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. v. Directorate General of Foreign Trade and Anr. and submits that, the decision of JSW Steel Limited (supra) 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.;