In a recent judgment by the Delhi High Court, the claim for TUFS subsidy by the petitioner has been dismissed. The case centered around the eligibility criteria for subsidy benefits under TUFS, with the respondent no. 3 rejecting the petitioner’s claim based on specific vintage life requirements. Despite the petitioner’s contentions and representations, the court found that the respondent’s decision was in accordance with the guidelines and subsequent amendments in TUFS. Stay informed about the details of this legal case! #DelhiHighCourt #LegalCase #Judgment
Facts
- The petitioner imported projectile shuttleless looms with a residual life of 10 years and a vintage life of 9 years.
- The respondent no. 3 rejected the petitioner’s claim for interest reimbursement subsidy based on the vintage life of the imported looms.
- The IMSC approved the eligibility of second-hand looms with a vintage of 10 years and a residual life of minimum 10 years under TUFS, post meeting held on 23.03.2000.
- The TAMC decided that the effective date of eligibility for interest reimbursement under TUFS would be the first disbursement of the term loan after 01.04.1999.
- The petitioner contended that they should be eligible for the TUFS benefit as per Circular No 1 (2000-2001 series) dated 17.04.2000.
- The respondent no. 3 rejected the petitioner’s claim multiple times, citing the vintage life of 9 years of the imported looms.
- The petitioner filed representations justifying their eligibility for the subsidy benefit under TUFS.
Analysis
- The petitioner imported 24 projectile shuttleless looms with a vintage life of 9 years and a minimum residual life of 10 years.
- The guidelines of TUFS at that time specified a maximum vintage life of 5 years for eligibility of subsidy benefits.
- Circular 1 (2000-2001) increased the vintage life requirement to 10 years, applicable only for term loans sanctioned after the 5th IMSC meeting.
- The petitioner’s term loan was sanctioned on 30-Mar-1999, falling before the change in vintage life requirement.
- This resulted in the imported looms being deemed ineligible for the 5% subsidy reimbursement under TUFS.
- Various correspondences and circulars highlighted the specific eligibility criteria and the timeline for changes in requirements.
- The decisions of IMSC meetings clarified the effective dates for eligibility criteria based on the amendments approved.
- Ultimately, the petitioner’s case did not meet the revised vintage life criteria introduced in 2000, leading to the rejection of subsidy benefits.
- Respondent 1 and Respondent 2 did not present contradictory stands in their counter affidavits.
- There was no evidence of discrimination by Respondent 1 and Respondent 2 against Petitioner.
Decision
- The present petition is devoid of any merit.
- The petitioner is not entitled to relief as prayed for.
- The respondents have acted as per contents of TUFS and subsequent amendments/modifications in TUFS.
- Hence petition is dismissed along with pending application if any.
Case Title: K.C. FIBERS LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (2024:DHC:4595)
Case Number: W.P.(C)-7886/2013
