Back
2009 Supreme(SC) 633
(2009) 12 Supreme Court Cases 37
DALVEER BHANDARI AND H.S. BEDI,
NEON LABORATORIES LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 2250 of 2009
decided on Aprill, 2009
S. Balakrishnan, Senior Advocate (Ravikesh K. Sinha, Atul Abhishek and Abhijat P. Medh, Advocates) for the Appellant;
B. Dutta, Additional Solicitor General, T.S. Doabia, Senior Advocate (Ms Rashmi Malhotra, D.S. Mahra and Ms Anil Katiyar, Advocates) for the Respondent.
The court emphasized the importance of a de novo decision and expeditious resolution of the matter.
Headnote:
Export-Import Policy - Passbook Scheme - Manufacturer Exporter - The court set aside the judgment of the High Court and the order of the Designated Authority, directing a de novo decision on the appellant's entitlement under the Scheme.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, M/s Neon Laboratories, submitted claims for credit under the Passbook Scheme but was rejected by the Designated Authority. The appellant filed a writ petition, which was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the judgment of the High Court and the order of the Designated Authority, directing a de novo decision on the appellant's entitlement under the Scheme.
Issues: Entitlement of the appellant under the Passbook Scheme
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a de novo decision, considering that all documents and the record of the Designated Authority were not before the court.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the appeal, leaving the parties to bear their own costs and directing the authority to decide the matter expeditiously within six months.
ORDER
1. Leave granted. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2222 of 1999 dated a 23-3-2006.
2. The appellant, M/s Neon Laboratories, submitted their claims for credit under the Passbook Scheme of Export-Import Policy, 1992-1997 for Shipping Bills (1) No. 730272 dated 11-3-1996, (2) No. 804444 dated 23-8-1996, (3) No. 804451 dated 23-8-1996, (4) No. 730255 dated 11-3-' b 1996, (5) No. 837182 dated 5-11-1996, and (6) No. 724928 dated 27-2-1996 along with other relevant documents. On examination of the documents, the Designated Authority rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground that the goods were manufactured under loan licence and the same was not covered under the category of manufacturer exporter and the benefits of the Scheme were available only for manufacturer exporter.
3. The appellant aggrieved by the said order preferred a writ petition before the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. The Division Bench also did not find merit in the writ petition filed by the appellant.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are not clear whether the appellant is entitled for the benefit under the Scheme because all d documents are not before this Court. The record of the case of the Designated Authority is also not before us. Even the counter-affidavit filed before the High Court has not been placed on record. In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and the order passed by the Designated Authority of the Passbook Scheme dated 12-5-1999. We order accordingly.
5. We direct the authority concerned to decide this case de novo after hearing learned counsel for the parties without being influenced by the observations of the courts below.
6. Since the matter has been pending for quite some time, we request the authority concerned to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible, in any event within six months from the date of communication of this order. All issues are left open.
7. This appeal is accordingly disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
