TESTEELS LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 502 · Decided: 06-02-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.L. OZA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
TESTEELS LTD. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
FEBRUARY 6, 1989 
B 
[G.L. OZA AND K.N. SAIKIA, JJ.) 
... 
Imports and Exports-Import Trade Control Policy 1972-197~ 
Export of Transmission Towers-Cash Assistance Scheme-Subse-
quent amended scheme prescribing time-bound period-making exports 
~-
ineligible for cash assistance beyond that period-Validity of 
c 
In 1969, the Govt. of India announced, through public notice a 
scheme for registration of contracts involving deUveries extending over .. 
a period of not less than 12 months for cash assistance m respecf of 
certain ei<pOrts. The scoiie oftbe scheme was extended in 1970, aUowing 
Cl!Sh assistance at the·same percentage as was prevailing on the date of 
D the firm contract so registered provided the.inwice was attested by the 
Banks concerned. It was also provided that even if the rate of cash 
assistance is reduced by Govt. the higher rate that existed on the date of 
the Firm contract would be admissible. And in case of increase in the 
rate, exports made during the contract would normaUy be eUgible for 
,... 
the benefit of the increased rate. It was also made clear that If the rate is 
E 
likely to affect an exporter adversely, Govt. would consider its matter 
on merits. 
In 1972 the cash assistance scheme on export of engineering goods 
was modified aUowing additional cash assistance of 5% of the f.o.b. 
value on all exports effected during 1.4.72 to 30.9.72 to certain -) 
F 
countries. It was further announced that in respect of transmission 
towers exported from 1st Oct. 1972 till 31st March, 1973 cash assistance 
would be at the rate of 25% of the f.o.b. value. 
The appellant company entered into contracts with the National 
Electricity Board of Malaysia and in respect of some of the exports of 
G transmission towers, the appellant received cash assistance and in 
respect of others, it was denied on the ground that the exports made 
during the extended delivery period of the contract were not covered 
under the Import Trade Control Policy and as such no cash assMance 
could be granted on exports made after March, 1974. 
H 
The appeal preferred by the appellant was rejected by the Deputy 
-~ 
:;02 
TESTEELS LTD. v. U.O.l. 
503 
Chief Controller of Imports and Exports on the groond that the benefit 
of registration on export in execution of the supplementary contract was 
additional qoantity at increased rates and could not be allowed under 
Govt. policy. The second appeal was rejected by the Chief Controller of 
Imports & Exports, stating that after execution of the supplementary 
order there was increase in quantity of goods to be supplied as also price 
on the date of execotioo of the supplementary order and the import 
policy did not provide for protection of benefits where there was 
increase in the value of contract. The review petition filed by the appel· 
laot was also rejected. 
Thereafter the appellant moved the High Court onder Article 226 
of the Constitution. The High Court partly allowed the petition rest-
raining the respondents from enforcing the demand for the refund of 
the cash assistance Biready paid and rejected the appellant's claim in 
respect of contracts, entered into in the context of the offers made 
subsequent to April 1972, since the cash assistance declared_ as on April 
1, 1972 and thereafter was in terms made available opto a specific date. 
This appeal by special leave is against the High Court's judgment. 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that at different 
stages, the respondents gave different reasons for refusing to pay cash 
assistance. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: 1.1 There could arise no question of granting cash assis-
tance to different exports under the original scheme and the prevalent 
amended scheme at the same time. [508E] 
1.2 Paragraph 10 in the 1970 scheme made it quite clear that 
exports effected after the specified date would not be eligible for cash 
assistance. Consistently with this paragraph, in the subsequent schemes 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
the periods were prescribed. The amended scheme dated 20th April, 
1972 prescribed the period from 1.4. 72 to 30.9. 72 and the amended G 
scheme dated 16th Jone 1973 applicable to this case, prescribed the 
period from 1st October 1972 npto and including 31st March 1973. Io 
other words, exports of Transmission Towers made after the prescribed 
period would not be eligible to assistance under the prevalent scheme. 
The word 'amendment' would imply that the scheme

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.