https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784364 The dominant issue was whether customs authorities could recover alleged excess duty drawback by applying a Board circular and notification issued in September-October 2011 to exports made during July-September 2011. The HC held that the circular and notification were prospective and could not be invoked retrospectively to reclassify the exported goods or disturb drawback already sanctioned for an earlier period; applying them amounted to a misdirection in law. Relying on CESTAT authority recognising the binding importance of Board classification for drawback purposes, the HC quashed the revisional order directing recovery, and allowed the writ petition. en-us Thu, 27 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Jan 2026 08:03:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784364 The dominant issue was whether customs authorities could recover alleged excess duty drawback by applying a Board circular and notification issued in September-October 2011 to exports made during July-September 2011. The HC held that the circular and notification were prospective and could not be invoked retrospectively to reclassify the exported goods or disturb drawback already sanctioned for an earlier period; applying them amounted to a misdirection in law. Relying on CESTAT authority recognising the binding importance of Board classification for drawback purposes, the HC quashed the revisional order directing recovery, and allowed the writ petition. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 27 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784364