https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4437 Fragrant polypropylene mats were treated as falling within the then-existing DEPB entry for polypropylene mats, because the policy in force on the export date governed entitlement and a later amendment carving out fragrant mats at a lower rate could not be applied retrospectively. DEPB credit at 20% was therefore admissible. The value cap and PMV objections were also rejected, as the brand declaration had been made in the shipping bills and PMV had already been examined by the competent DGFT authority. The Customs authorities could not deny the benefit on those grounds. en-us Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4437 Fragrant polypropylene mats were treated as falling within the then-existing DEPB entry for polypropylene mats, because the policy in force on the export date governed entitlement and a later amendment carving out fragrant mats at a lower rate could not be applied retrospectively. DEPB credit at 20% was therefore admissible. The value cap and PMV objections were also rejected, as the brand declaration had been made in the shipping bills and PMV had already been examined by the competent DGFT authority. The Customs authorities could not deny the benefit on those grounds. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4437