Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(Per : A.M. Dhavale, J. )

1. The petitioners in both the Writ Petitions assail the orders of rejection of their claim for subsidy on export of sugar.

2. Mr. R.N. Dhorde, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners argued that there is no dispute that the petitioner is a Co-operative Society manufacturing sugar and exporting the same as per the Sugar Development Fund Act, 1982 (SDF Act) and Rules hereunder and as per policies declared by the respondents. In March, August and September, 2008, the petitioner exported sugar and they were entitled to get subsidy by way of export assistance payable to the sugarcane growers @ Rs.1350/- per metric tonne for coastal area and Rs. 1450/- per metric tonne for non-coastal area. They followed the provisions of law and submitted the bills as per the chart below :-

15. The notification dated 7th November, 2007 clause 9 provides that the claims must be submitted separately for each calender month of export in form No. 9 duly filled in along with the documents specified therein. Form 9 clause 3 shows that those claims are to be submitted for every month.

16. Though not argued, since the delay in submission of claims beyond 180 days makes the claim time barred, it is pertinent to note here that as per Government Resolution dated 08.11.2017 the claims of sugar mills for buffer subsidy and export incentive must be registered and acknowledgment should be issued showing the registration number. The claims which are accompanied with all the prescribed documents would be processed for settlement sequentially as per registration number issued at the time of receipt of the bank in the respective claims.