https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400208 An exporter was held entitled to the remaining duty credit scrips under the Target Plus Scheme for the 2005-2006 export year because the later amendment reducing entitlement could not be applied retrospectively to take away an accrued benefit. The court treated the petitioner as falling within the higher entitlement bracket applicable when the exports were made, and found that prior release of part of the benefit did not justify withholding the balance. It further held that alleged non-submission of Bank Realisation Certificates did not amount to subsisting government dues, as no quantified or enforceable demand existed. The claim under the incentive scheme therefore could not be defeated on that basis. en-us Thu, 29 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Feb 2021 15:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400208 An exporter was held entitled to the remaining duty credit scrips under the Target Plus Scheme for the 2005-2006 export year because the later amendment reducing entitlement could not be applied retrospectively to take away an accrued benefit. The court treated the petitioner as falling within the higher entitlement bracket applicable when the exports were made, and found that prior release of part of the benefit did not justify withholding the balance. It further held that alleged non-submission of Bank Realisation Certificates did not amount to subsisting government dues, as no quantified or enforceable demand existed. The claim under the incentive scheme therefore could not be defeated on that basis. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 29 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400208