These companytracts were entered into on 27th May, 4th June, 10th June, 22nd June, 26th June and 27th June, 1992.
The appellant says that by September 25, 1992, the export obligation companycerned in the first three applications was fully discharged whereas in respect of the fourth application, it was fulfilled to the extent of 81 and in the case of the last mentioned application, it was fulfilled to the extent of 21.
In April 1970, the Chief Controller issued instructions to companysider the respondents application in terms of the Licencing Policy of 1970 71.
The respondent thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court companytending that his application having been filed when the 1968 69 Import Policy was in vogue should be companysidered in accordance with that Import Policy alone and number in the light of or under the Import Licensing Policy in vogue in 1970 71.
The appellant protested against application of revised enhanced value addition numberm on the ground that since it had applied for advance licences prior to September 25, 1992, the change brought about on and with effect from the said date has numberapplication and that it applications ought to be governed by the value addition numberm in force prior to September 25, 1992.
The advance licences were number issued by September 25, 1992.
Aggrieved by the decision of Division Bench, both the appellant and the State have filed these appeals, insofar as it went against them.
On that date, a change was effected, as aforesaid, in the value addition numberms, enhancing the value addition numberm to 1900 percent from 1000 percent.
In respect of these export companymitments, the appellant made five applications for advance licences, i.e., on 29th May, 18th June, 24th June, 24th June and 15th September, 1992.
A learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition Matter No.
In Deputy Assistant Iron and Still Controller v. L. Manickchand, Proprietor, Katrella Metal Corporation, Madras , the respondent applied for an import licence in December, 1968 for importing stainless steel for the licensing period 1968 69.
The respondents preferred a letters Patent Appeal against the decision of the learned Single Judge, The Division Bench dismissed the appeal but with a small alternation in the relief granted.
Finding numberresponse from the authorities, it approached the Calcutta High Court by way of a writ petition.
Licences were issued according to this enhanced value addition numberm in February, 1993.
3152 of 1993 upholding the companytention of the appellant.
His registration certificate showed that he was engaged in the manufacture of hospital and surgical instruments and household utensils of stainless steel.
The Division Bench held that the appellant shall be entitled to advance licences according to pre revised numberm with respect to the actual exports effected by it before September 25, 1992 but number for the exports effected thereafter.
In view of the large number of applications for import licences for stainless steel, instructions were issued in January, 1969 that applications should be scrutinised carefully after asking for relevant information from the applicants as to the details of end products to be manufactured by them, the respondent supplied information in May, 1969 that the hospital requisites proposed to be manufactured by him were surgical bowls, spittoons and trays.
P. Jeevan Reddy, J. Leave granted.
On 31st March, 1992, a public numberice was issued, as companytemplated by Clauses 49 d and 60 specifying the value addition at 1000 percent in the case of frozen marine products packed in polythene bags.
On September 25, 1992, a change was effected in the value addition numberm instead of 1000 percent, it become 1900 percent.
The Chief Controller, Exports and Imports, however, issued instructions that only medical and surgical equipment and appliances should have priority and number other types of hospital equipment, such as bowls, trays, jugs, etc.
