UNION OF INDIA Vs. REDDYS LABORATORIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Appellants (Original Respondents) against the order dtd. 25/2/2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.1743/2019 (Annexure A-1 to the memo of this appeal). There is a delay of 921 days in preferring the appeal and, thus, C.M. No. 36997/2021 has been preferred seeking condonation of delay.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants submits that the delay of 921 days in preferring the appeal is mainly for the reason that in a similar matter related to Annual IEIS Scheme, the issue was already under litigation with regard to correct interpretation of Notification dtd. 25/9/2013 whereby amendments were made in the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014. The Division Bench of this Court had passed an order on 12/4/2018 in W.P.(C) 5082/2017 in the case of M/s. Welldone Exim and Respondents had thereafter filed SLP(C) No.012878/2019 in October, 2018 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The matter is still subjudice in the Hon'ble Supreme Court and a few other matters involving similar issues have been tagged with the said SLP. It is also submitted that in the Government, the files have to pass through several departments/officers dealing with the matter which is time consuming and the Directorate has also to take inputs from the concerned Regional Office of the DGFT and seek legal advice from the Department of Legal Affairs. The delay is unintentional and for reasons beyond the control of the Appellants. Learned counsel for the Appellants also submits that the delay is also caused on account of the Pandemic Covid-19 as initially there was a lockdown and thereafter, the functioning in the Government offices was restricted.

(3.) As far as the merits of the appeal are concerned, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants submits that the maximum limit for benefit of Duty Credit Scrip under the Incremental Export Incentivisation Scheme (for short "IEIS Scheme') is Rs.1.00 crore, as per Notification No.43 dtd. 25/9/2013 and, therefore, claim of the Respondent (original petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1743/2019) was rejected initially by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, Hyderabad vide order dtd. 30/1/2018 and thereafter, by Director General of Foreign Trade vide order dtd. 16/11/2018. Learned counsel submits that the Notification No.43 dtd. 25/9/2013 is explicitly clear and unambiguous and permits no flexibility in the grant of benefit beyond the maximum limit prescribed and the relevant clause of the Notification has been ignored by the learned Single Judge.