<?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 (8) TMI 251 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796378</link>
    <description>Simultaneous DEPB benefits and 7% brand rate drawback for the bus-body portion were permissible under the continuing simplified drawback dispensation without duty-paid documents, absent proof that both benefits reimbursed the same duty incidence. An unwithdrawn beneficial circular adopting the average drawback rate could not be curtailed by later clarifications imposing inconsistent conditions, rendering the denial and recovery unsustainable for the relevant period. Adjudicating authorities could nevertheless reopen drawback grants alleged to be contrary to law under the Drawback Rules. Recovery of wrongly paid drawback was governed by an independent mechanism and, although no specific limitation applied, had to commence within a reasonable time; the proceedings met that standard.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2026 08:48:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=915441" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (8) TMI 251 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796378</link>
      <description>Simultaneous DEPB benefits and 7% brand rate drawback for the bus-body portion were permissible under the continuing simplified drawback dispensation without duty-paid documents, absent proof that both benefits reimbursed the same duty incidence. An unwithdrawn beneficial circular adopting the average drawback rate could not be curtailed by later clarifications imposing inconsistent conditions, rendering the denial and recovery unsustainable for the relevant period. Adjudicating authorities could nevertheless reopen drawback grants alleged to be contrary to law under the Drawback Rules. Recovery of wrongly paid drawback was governed by an independent mechanism and, although no specific limitation applied, had to commence within a reasonable time; the proceedings met that standard.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796378</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>