IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Ericsson India Global Services Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 13249 of 2019 & CM Appl. 53883 of 2019, W.P.(C) 10146 of 2020 & CM Appl. 32318 of 2020 and W.P.(C) 1633 of 2020 & CM Appl. 5740 of 2020
Decided On : 27-04-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common grievance across petitions and relevant facts (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments against instructions and orders regarding seis (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. respondents' contention on the maintainability and nature of service (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. court's analysis of ftp and eligibility criteria under seis (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. clarification regarding ineligible services under seis (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 6. court's interpretation of 'service providers in telecom sector' (Para 37 , 39) |
| 7. historical context of seis and previous policies (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 8. legal definitions from trai act relevant to the case (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56) |
| 9. court's stance on policy amendments and ambiguity (Para 57 , 58 , 59) |
| 10. reasons for setting aside impugned orders and communications (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66) |
| 11. ordering a fresh consideration of claims under seis (Para 67 , 68) |
| 12. conclusion and directive on costs (Para 69) |
JUDGMENT
1. All the above three petitions raise similar grievances and are therefore, adjudicated by way of a common judgment. For sake of convenience, the facts have been taken from WP (C) 13249 of 2019.
2. The said petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the instructions dated 22.05.2019, addressed by the respondent no. 4 to the respondent no. 3, advising that all services, whether Engineering Services (Network Engineering Services, Management and Operation of Network Services (Managed Services) in Telecom Sector or Management Consulting Services) in Telecom Sector, are ineligible for the benefit under the Service Exports from India Scheme (hereinafter referred to as `SEIS') announced by the FOREIGN TRADE POLICY 2015-20. The petition further impugns the order(s) dated 11.06.2019 and 03.06.2019, whereby the respondent no. 3 has rejected the claim of the petitioner(s) for benefit under the SEIS for the financial years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18, respectively.
3. To appreciate the dispute between the parties, few facts need to be highlighted.
3.1. The respondent no. 1, in exercise of its powers under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'), notified the FOREIGN TRADE POLICY , 2015-20 (hereinafter referred to as the `FTP').
3.2. Chapter 3 of the FTP details the "Exports from India Schemes".
3.3. Paragraph 3.01 of the FTP states that there shall be following two schemes for exports of Merchandise and Services respectively:
(a) Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS);
(b) Service Exports from India Scheme (SEIS)
3.4. The present set of petitions relate to claim of the petitioners under SEIS.
3.5. The petitioner raised the claim for issuance of Duty Credit Scrips under SEIS claiming that it is providing Engineering Services under Central Product Classification (CPC) Code 8672 and Management Consulting Services under CPC Code 865, as mentioned in Appendix-3D of the FTP.
3.6. By way of the impugned instructions dated 22.05.2019, addressed by the respondent no. 4 to the respondent no. 3, respondent no. 4 opined/instructed that all services, whether Engineering Services (Network Engineering Services, Management and Operation of Network Services (Managed Services) in Telecom Sector or Management Consulting Services) in Telecom Sector, are ineligible for SEIS.
3.7. Following the above instructions, the claims of the petitioner for benefit of SEIS were rejected by the impugned Orders dated 03.06.2019 and 11.06.2019.
4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the Impugned Instructions dated 22.05.2019 are contrary to the FTP inasmuch as they seek to create an additional category of ineligible services for availing the benefit of SEIS. He submits that the phrase "Service Providers in Telecom Sector" relates to the service providers who are in the telecom
The Foreign Trade Policy excludes only telecommunications service providers from SEIS benefits, but the clarification attempting to broaden this exclusion was deemed ultra vires.
The Policy Circular No. 06/2018, denying SEIS benefits to port operators, was ruled ultra vires, affirming petitioner's legitimate claim based on prior approvals under the FTP 2015–2020.
Retrospective amendments reducing statutory entitlements are impermissible under constitutional and administrative law principles.
Section 28AAA Customs Act applies post-DGFT ab initio scrip cancellation for wilful misdeclaration; duty recoverable from issuer when third party utilises; employee penalty set aside if company penal....
Point of Law : It is a settled proposition of law that a party has to plead case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition. In the absence of the sam....
The court ruled that a show cause notice based on prior mis-statements was untenable as it contradicted a previous judgment that quashed recovery notices and upheld the prospective nature of a policy....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.