https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354328 The court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned orders and the Policy Circular dated 15.03.2013, directing the respondents to process the petitioner's Terminal Excise Duty (TED) refund claim. The court emphasized the petitioner's clear entitlement to TED refund under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) before the amendment on 18.04.2013, stating that subsequent amendments could not retrospectively affect this right. The court also clarified that the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) lacked the authority to amend the FTP, emphasizing alignment between DGFT circulars and the FTP. en-us Fri, 19 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Jul 2018 14:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354328 The court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned orders and the Policy Circular dated 15.03.2013, directing the respondents to process the petitioner's Terminal Excise Duty (TED) refund claim. The court emphasized the petitioner's clear entitlement to TED refund under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) before the amendment on 18.04.2013, stating that subsequent amendments could not retrospectively affect this right. The court also clarified that the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) lacked the authority to amend the FTP, emphasizing alignment between DGFT circulars and the FTP. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 19 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354328