TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 1333
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the ex post facto alteration of the material terms of an incentive scheme that has seriously prejudiced the petitioner since the petitioner had organised and planned its export business on the basis of the incentive scheme declared by the Central Government on December 28, 2012. Under the Incremental Exports Incentivisation Scheme, exporters were to be given a duty credit scrip at the rate of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rip of value in excess of Rs. 1 crore, the petitioner's claim was rejected apparently on the ground that by a subsequent notification of September 25, 2013 the following two clauses were inserted in the relevant scheme: "(i) Benefit of Incremental Export Incentivisation Scheme for the last quarter of 2012-13 will be limited to 25% growth or incremental growth on Rs. 10 crores in value, whichever....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otification on several other grounds which are available. The petitioner refers to a yet unreported judgment of the Delhi High Court rendered on September 28, 2015 in WP(C) 1345 of 2015 (Sesa Sterlite Limited v. Union of India) where a similar view has been taken that the subsequent notification cannot affect the rights that had vested in any exporter prior to the subsequent notification coming in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 25, 2013. In the light of the discussion above and particularly since the authority under Section 5 of the said Act does not permit a benefit already vested to be withdrawn from the hands of the beneficiary, WP No.1355 of 2015 is allowed by setting aside the order impugned dated October 1,2015 and by requesting the second respondent to reconsider the matter and pay the rightful dues of the petit....