https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191363 A later administrative circular could not retrospectively withdraw brand rate drawback already granted under earlier valid circulars and letters. The Court applied the principle that Board instructions operate prospectively unless expressly made retrospective, and that accrued benefits under the earlier regime cannot be unsettled by a subsequent circular. Relying on the prior Division Bench view, affirmed by the Supreme Court, the Court held Circular No. 39/2001-Cus. to be prospective only. The revocation letters issued on that basis were unsustainable, and the earlier drawback benefit remained intact. en-us Wed, 07 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 Mar 2017 16:46:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191363 A later administrative circular could not retrospectively withdraw brand rate drawback already granted under earlier valid circulars and letters. The Court applied the principle that Board instructions operate prospectively unless expressly made retrospective, and that accrued benefits under the earlier regime cannot be unsettled by a subsequent circular. Relying on the prior Division Bench view, affirmed by the Supreme Court, the Court held Circular No. 39/2001-Cus. to be prospective only. The revocation letters issued on that basis were unsustainable, and the earlier drawback benefit remained intact. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 07 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191363