<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (1) TMI 289 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784533</link>
    <description>The Interest Equalisation Scheme required banks to pass on the full interest subvention benefit upfront to eligible exporters while the scheme was in force. A later RBI circular extending the scheme from 1 October 2021 and reducing the rate to 3% did not permit retrospective clawback of benefits already granted for export credits disbursed before 30 September 2021. The DGFT clarification was read to preserve the exporter&#039;s entitlement where disbursement had occurred earlier, even if the credit tenor continued beyond that date. The bank&#039;s failure to seek timely reimbursement from RBI could not be shifted to the exporter, and recovery of the differential amount was wrongful.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2026 08:03:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=876397" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 289 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784533</link>
      <description>The Interest Equalisation Scheme required banks to pass on the full interest subvention benefit upfront to eligible exporters while the scheme was in force. A later RBI circular extending the scheme from 1 October 2021 and reducing the rate to 3% did not permit retrospective clawback of benefits already granted for export credits disbursed before 30 September 2021. The DGFT clarification was read to preserve the exporter&#039;s entitlement where disbursement had occurred earlier, even if the credit tenor continued beyond that date. The bank&#039;s failure to seek timely reimbursement from RBI could not be shifted to the exporter, and recovery of the differential amount was wrongful.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784533</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>