Retrospective withdrawal of accrued exemption was invalid, preserving entitlement under the earlier notification for a wind energy unit.

A delegated amending notification could not be applied retrospectively to withdraw an exemption already accrued under an earlier notification, because the petitioner had acted on that benefit to set up and commission a wind energy unit and had already filed the eligibility application. In the absence of a clear legislative mandate authorising retrospective withdrawal of an earned exemption, the later cut-off date and additional conditions could not defeat the earlier entitlement. The rejection orders based on those retrospective conditions were therefore unsustainable and were quashed, leaving the petitioner entitled to exemption under the 14.09.1998 notification.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amending notification dated 09.06.2000 could validly be given retrospective effect so as to withdraw the exemption already available under the earlier notification dated 14.09.1998, and whether the rejection of the petitioner's claim for exemption was sustainable.

Analysis: The exemption under the earlier notification had been acted upon by the petitioner for setting up and commissioning the wind energy unit. The subsequent notification introduced a cut-off date and additional conditions with retrospective effect, despite the unit having commenced production and the eligibility application having already been filed. In the absence of a clear legislative mandate authorising retrospective withdrawal of an accrued benefit, a delegated notification could not take away the benefit already earned under the earlier regime. The rejection orders proceeded on the retrospective conditions introduced later and therefore could not stand.

Conclusion: The retrospective application of the amending notification was invalid and the petitioner remained entitled to exemption under the notification dated 14.09.1998. The rejection orders were unsustainable and were quashed.

---