1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds Petitioners' right to split Replenishment Licence under old policy despite new rules</h1> The Court ruled in favor of the Petitioners, holding that their entitlement to split the Replenishment Licence under the old Import Policy of 1985-88 was ... Replenishment licence Issues:1. Denial of splitting of Replenishment Licence under the new Import Policy.2. Validity of the Petitioners' claim for splitting up the licence under the old Import Policy.Detailed Analysis:1. The Petitioners were granted an Advance Licence for import of Synthetic Waste and fulfilled their export obligation, which entitled them to an export entitlement certificate. Subsequently, they applied for a Replenishment Licence under the old Import Policy of 1985-88. However, their request for splitting the licence was denied under the new Import Policy of 1988-91, citing the timing of their application submission as the reason for refusal. The Court noted that the denial was solely based on the timing of the application submission after the new Policy came into effect. The Court opined that the Petitioners' right to the licence was earned under the old Policy, and this right could not be nullified by subsequent Policy changes. The Court emphasized that the entitlement to split the licence should not be frustrated based on the delayed application submission, especially when the entitlement was earned under the previous Policy, which allowed for such splitting.2. The Court referred to a previous judgment by another judge in a similar case, where it was held that the Petitioners were entitled to the splitting up of the licence despite the application being made after the new Policy came into force. Relying on this precedent, the Court ruled in favor of the Petitioners, stating that their claim for splitting up the Replenishment Licence was valid under the old Import Policy of 1985-88. The Court quashed the orders denying the splitting of the licence and directed the Respondents to split up the licence as per the Petitioners' request made under the old Policy. The Court instructed the Respondents to revalidate the split-up licences for a year and comply with the directions within six weeks.In conclusion, the Court found in favor of the Petitioners, emphasizing that their entitlement to split the Replenishment Licence under the old Import Policy could not be denied based solely on the timing of their application submission after the introduction of a new Policy. The judgment highlighted the importance of upholding rights earned under previous policies and ruled in favor of the Petitioners' claim for splitting up the licence.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
