Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the amended notification substituting 10% for 2% in the export refund scheme applied to the assessee, and whether the amendment was to be read prospectively so as to deny the enhanced benefit.
Analysis: The substitution of words in subordinate legislation was treated as an ordinary mode of amendment that enlarges the scope of the notification. Since the notification did not expressly provide that the enhanced percentage would operate only prospectively, no presumption of prospective restriction could be drawn. The amendment was viewed as a beneficial change intended to extend the export incentive, and the interpretation adopted in the cited authority on substitution supported that construction.
Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the enhanced 10% refund benefit, and the denial of the benefit from the date of the substituting notification was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the refund was to be determined by applying the substituted notification conferring the higher benefit.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a subordinate fiscal notification is amended by substitution without an express prospective limitation, the substituted provision takes effect according to its beneficial enlarged scope and cannot be confined by implication to a later date.