2016 (2) TMI 771

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ive or prospective - Held that:- By substitution, subordinate legislation do not cause anomaly. It is true that if the subordinate legislation had intended that the benefit of 10% shall be allowed only from the date of substitution through Notification dated 07.12.2008, they would have expressly stated that the notification shall have prospective effect. But that is not done. Therefore, there can .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed the refund to the appellant to 2% of FOB in terms of Notification No.17/2008-ST, dated 01.04.2008, although, Notification No.33/2008, dated 07.12.2008 expanded the percentage to 10% by substitution of the words 10% in place of 2% in the previous notification, appellant has been aggrieved. 2. It is submission of learned consultant for appellant today that substitution is the convenient mode .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ubstitution, subordinate legislation do not cause anomaly. It is true that if the subordinate legislation had intended that the benefit of 10% shall be allowed only from the date of substitution through Notification dated 07.12.2008, they would have expressly stated that the notification shall have prospective effect. But that is not done. Therefore, there cannot be presumption of prospective effe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X