<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2019 (4) TMI 450 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378006</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the petition challenging the order dated 27th February, 2001, regarding the retrospective credit under the DEPB scheme. It held that the 15% credit rate fixed on 31st March, 2000, could not be applied retrospectively from 1st April, 1997. The court emphasized that delegated legislation like the DEPB scheme cannot have retrospective effect unless expressly provided, and policy decisions should not be interfered with judicially. The petition was therefore dismissed, upholding the impugned order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Sep 2019 14:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=565895" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 450 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378006</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the petition challenging the order dated 27th February, 2001, regarding the retrospective credit under the DEPB scheme. It held that the 15% credit rate fixed on 31st March, 2000, could not be applied retrospectively from 1st April, 1997. The court emphasized that delegated legislation like the DEPB scheme cannot have retrospective effect unless expressly provided, and policy decisions should not be interfered with judicially. The petition was therefore dismissed, upholding the impugned order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378006</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>