Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Appeal dismissed, respondent entitled to DEPB credit for woven jackets at 20% rate without value cap.</h1> <h3>UNION OF INDIA Versus HIMSHEEL INTERNATIONAL</h3> UNION OF INDIA Versus HIMSHEEL INTERNATIONAL - 2011 (273) E.L.T. 495 (Del.) Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to DEPB credit rate.2. Application of promissory estoppel.3. Applicability of clause 1.5 of the Exim Policy.4. Validity of the Circular dated 28th July, 1998.Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to DEPB Credit Rate:The respondent exported 10,000 jackets between 26th March, 1998, and 5th June, 1998, and received payment as per the export order and irrevocable letter of credit. The DEPB scheme allows exporters to claim credit as a percentage of the FOB value of exports. Initially, the DEPB credit rate for Gents Jackets was 23% of the FOB value. However, effective 15th April, 1998, the rate was revised to 16% for knitted jackets with a value cap of Rs. 200 and 20% for woven jackets. The respondent was given DEPB credit at the revised rate for exports made after 15th April, 1998, resulting in a substantial reduction in the DEPB credit.2. Application of Promissory Estoppel:The respondent argued promissory estoppel, claiming that the contract and irrevocable letter of credit were established before the rate change, and the drastic reduction in DEPB credit made the transaction uneconomic. The learned Single Judge applied the principle of promissory estoppel, referencing Union of India v. Cosmique International and Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India. The doctrine of promissory estoppel prevents the government from going back on its promise if it would result in injustice, unless larger public interest necessitates the change.3. Applicability of Clause 1.5 of the Exim Policy:The respondent relied on clause 1.5 of the Exim Policy, which allows for exports/imports to be permitted despite subsequent restrictions if an irrevocable letter of credit was established before the restriction. The appellants argued that clause 1.5 does not apply to DEPB credit, as it is determined by the prevailing rates of customs duty. However, the court noted that clause 1.5 supports the principle of promissory estoppel, aiming to prevent economic loss or hardship due to policy changes.4. Validity of the Circular dated 28th July, 1998:The Circular dated 28th July, 1998, clarified that the value cap of Rs. 200 applied to both woven and knitted garments. The court observed that this circular, although described as clarificatory, effectively imposed a new restriction on woven jackets for the first time and could not be applied retrospectively. The respondent should be entitled to the DEPB rate without the value cap as per the policy effective from 15th April, 1998.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the learned Single Judge was upheld. The respondent was entitled to DEPB credit at the rate of 20% without the value cap for woven jackets, as per the policy effective from 15th April, 1998. The directions given by the Single Judge were to be complied with within two months.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found