https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46957 Circular No. 39/2001 was treated as a fresh administrative circular, not a mere clarification, and therefore could not be applied retrospectively to withdraw or recover brand rate drawback already accrued under earlier circulars. Benefits that exporters had obtained or were entitled to consider under the prior regime were protected until the later circular came into force. The rejection orders based on retrospective application were quashed, and the authorities were directed to process pending or completed drawback claims in accordance with the earlier circular position, as retrospectivity could not be implied to impair vested benefits without clear legal authorisation. en-us Mon, 15 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Jun 2024 17:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46957 Circular No. 39/2001 was treated as a fresh administrative circular, not a mere clarification, and therefore could not be applied retrospectively to withdraw or recover brand rate drawback already accrued under earlier circulars. Benefits that exporters had obtained or were entitled to consider under the prior regime were protected until the later circular came into force. The rejection orders based on retrospective application were quashed, and the authorities were directed to process pending or completed drawback claims in accordance with the earlier circular position, as retrospectivity could not be implied to impair vested benefits without clear legal authorisation. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 15 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46957