AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Year,"Total
production
in lack","Export as
per CA
certificate","Export as per
BRC
1997-98,1855.16,1813.86,475.68
Year,"Total
production
in lack","Export as
per CA
certificate","Export as per
BRC
1997-98,1855.16,1813.86,475.68
1998-99,825.53,817.56,901.02
1999-00,453.52,427.86,452.72
2000-01,405.69,394.07,553.40
2001-02,548.36,538.35,Nil
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the purpose of formulating the Policy was to give a fillip to the industrial",,,
sector with a view to reduce the burden upon the agricultural sector which is the back bone of the economy of the State of Punjab and in that process,,,
issued notification dated 1.6.1996 to bring into operation the Punjab Investment Incentive Code under the Policy in which the definition of the,,,
‘Export Oriented Unit’ is provided in Clause 2.22 which means an industrial unit exporting at least 25% of its products in market outside India.,,,
It is submitted that the report prepared by the Project Manager, District Industrial Centre, Ludhiana while verifying the EOU status of the petitioner is",,,
just a recommendation because it was based upon the certificates of the BRC (Bank Releasing Certificate) and Chartered Accountant whereas, the",,,
petitioner has failed to produce the relevant documents before the Industries Department in order to prove that it has complied with both the conditions,,,
mentioned in the sanctioned letter and also the provisions of Clause 2.22. It is further submitted that from the documents tendered by the petitioner it,,,
has been found that the petitioner is not manufacturing the export items but is trading in it and also doing a job for the export of its machines.,,,
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the present petition",,,
because the petitioner has failed to comply with both the conditions of the sanctioned letter mentioned in detail hereinabove and has also failed to,,,
prove that it falls within the definition of Clause 2.22 of the notification dated 1.6.1996 by which the Government of Punjab has issued the Punjab,,,
Industrial Incentives Code under the Industrial Policy, 1996. The petitioner has failed to prove that its industry was exporting at least 25% of its",,,
product in the market outside India rather the evidence brought on record by the petitioner, examined by the respondent department, shows that the",,,
petitioner had manufactured and exported its product only for two years and seven months and thereafter, it indulged in trading for the purpose of",,,
export and also it started job work on its machines for manufacturing items for the purpose of export.,,,
Thus looking from any angle, I do not find any reason to interfere in the well reasoned impugned order passed by the respondents on the",,,
representation made by the petitioner by which the same has been rejected.,,,
Dismissed. No cost.,,,