https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760812 The Madras HC dismissed a writ petition challenging denial of duty drawback claims for woolen readymade garments. The petitioner argued that drawback benefits were wrongly denied after exports were made, citing CBEC Circular No.55/99-Cus dated 25.08.1999. The court held that clarificatory notifications are retrospective in nature, following Karnataka HC precedent. The circular clarified that S.S.NO.62.09 applies only to woollen suits/trousers/blazers/jackets, not other woollen garments. Since petitioner's exported products fell outside these specified categories, they were only entitled to brand rate drawback, not the claimed higher rate. en-us Thu, 03 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Oct 2024 10:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760812 The Madras HC dismissed a writ petition challenging denial of duty drawback claims for woolen readymade garments. The petitioner argued that drawback benefits were wrongly denied after exports were made, citing CBEC Circular No.55/99-Cus dated 25.08.1999. The court held that clarificatory notifications are retrospective in nature, following Karnataka HC precedent. The circular clarified that S.S.NO.62.09 applies only to woollen suits/trousers/blazers/jackets, not other woollen garments. Since petitioner's exported products fell outside these specified categories, they were only entitled to brand rate drawback, not the claimed higher rate. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 03 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760812