Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2015 (1) TMI 1359

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hallenges the proceedings of the Director General of Foreign Trade (for short, 'DGFT') denying to the petitioner the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (for short, 'DEPB') credit extended by the government for export of "non-alloy steel forging - machined)". The impugned order was passed referring to a public notice issued on 21-9-1998 that specifically allowed for DEPB rate at 14% for export of non-alloy....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ranted previously, the same ought to be available for the subsequent export for the period May, 1998 to July, 1998 as well. When this plea was made by the petitioner, the respondent raised a query of whether the DEPB credit would be extended also to complete articles having achieved the characteristics of finished products and which did not require any other manufacturing process or it would cover....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....product was specifically spelt out in the subsequent notice which must be taken as clarificatory for exports already effected. The impugned order has been passed in response to the representation stating that the public notice issued on 21-9-1998 would be only prospective in nature and cannot be availed to an exporter for the previous period. 4. I find the whole reasoning to be erroneous. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was claiming DEPB rate at 14%, then the impugned order could have been sustained to point out that the rate would be applicable only prospectively for exports made after 21-9-1998. The petitioner was only asking for rates as prevalent for the earlier period and the amount claimed at Rs.  7,61,423/- was on the rates that were prevalent at the relevant time. The doubt created that such a benefi....