TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1259
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pearing for the petitioners, has pointed out that the issue raised in the present writ petitions is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Suraj Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors., 2025 INSC 755. 2. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Utkarsh R. Sharma, appearing for the respondents, is unable to controvert the aforesaid statement. 3. Hence, the writ petition is required to be allowed in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court. After comparing Custom Notification Nos. 81 of 2006, 68 of 2007, 103 of 2008 and 84 of 2010 relating to the entitlement to duty drawback, the Supreme Court has ultimately held thus: "14. Even otherwise, a threadbare analysis of the nature and substan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he ambiguity qua the meaning & threshold of the previous Notifications. For the same reason, the operation of such a provision or instruction by the Department could only be retrospective in nature, so as to give effect to the objective of the Notifications issued by CBEC. 16. It also cannot be deduced that by virtue of the Circular, CBEC intended to deprive the Appellant and such similarly placed merchant exporters from the benefit of customs duty drawbacks prior to 20.09.2010. In our considered view, it is inconceivable that the previous Notifications would be in operation in any other manner except as specified and clarified in the manner indicated in the Circular dt. 17.09.2020, and it is not the case of the Department that bef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tested on the anvil of the doctrine of "fairness". The substratum of a beneficial legislation is to ensure that the benefit is uniform and absolute, which may be prospective in nature, but when such benefit to one person does not inflict any undue burden on the other, the purposive construction can be considered to be given a retrospective effect. It is therefore pertinent to clarify that except in cases where such enactments or issuance of Circulars are arbitrary, vexatious or constitute a parallel mechanism making its operation unfair, the Courts need not entertain objections to the operation of a clarificatory/declaratory provision which is only intended to assert & give effect to its parent provision/statute. 19. In th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the language of the Circular does not expand or alter the scope of the previous Notifications, but rather cements the claim of the merchant exporters, who were entitled to receive the benefit of All Industry Rate (for short 'AIR') customs duty drawback since 2007. It is further held that the Circular dated 17.09.2010 per se clarifies and makes it explicit that the customs duties which remained unrebated to the concerned manufacturers should be provided through the AIR drawback route, with or without the rebate of Central Excise Duties at the time of processing in terms of Rule 18 or 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Further, it is clarified that the said Circular merely clarifies that the benefit of 1% customs duty drawback as indicated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. (supra); therefore, interest may not be awarded. 9. The issue with regard to the retrospective effect of the Circular No. 35/2010-Cus. dated 17.09.2010 has been clarified by the Supreme Court M/s. Suraj Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra). We are of the opinion that the petitioners, by filing the present writ petition, have agitated the issue of recovery of drawback, which has ultimately been found in favour of the petitioners in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Suraj Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Hence, in our considered opinion and in the interest of justice, the petitioners are entitled to interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the writ petition on the refunded amount till the same is actually paid. W....