https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388489 Exemption under Notification No. 104/2009-Customs was held available for five Bills of Entry cleared through ICD Arakkonam before that port was specifically named, because the notification contemplated clearance through other ports by special order and was later amended to include additional ports. The Court rejected the objection that the Commissioner's power could operate only prospectively, applying the principle that a later substitution or amendment intended to cure an omission in a beneficial scheme may operate retrospectively or retroactively where fairness and the scheme's object so require. Denial of the exemption for earlier clearances alone was therefore unsustainable, and the petitioner was entitled to the benefit. en-us Thu, 07 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Nov 2020 12:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388489 Exemption under Notification No. 104/2009-Customs was held available for five Bills of Entry cleared through ICD Arakkonam before that port was specifically named, because the notification contemplated clearance through other ports by special order and was later amended to include additional ports. The Court rejected the objection that the Commissioner's power could operate only prospectively, applying the principle that a later substitution or amendment intended to cure an omission in a beneficial scheme may operate retrospectively or retroactively where fairness and the scheme's object so require. Denial of the exemption for earlier clearances alone was therefore unsustainable, and the petitioner was entitled to the benefit. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 07 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388489