Judicial Interpretation - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Rules Customs Duty Drawback Circular Has Retrospective Effect

7Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules Customs Duty Drawback Circular Has Retrospective Effect

The Supreme Court held that Circular No. 35/2010-Cus. dated 17.09.2010, which clarified the entitlement of merchant exporters to claim 1% All Industry Rate (AIR) customs duty drawback irrespective of availing CENVAT benefits, was clarificatory and declaratory in nature. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Circular must be applied retrospectively, ensuring uniform benefits from 2008 onwards. The judgment emphasized that clarificatory circulars, which resolve ambiguities in existing notifications without creating new rights, operate retrospectively to align with the legislative intent. The High Court's order denying retrospective application was set aside. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, M/s Suraj Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd., a merchant exporter of Soyabean Meal (SBM), claimed All Industr...

Supreme Court Clarifies: When Does a Dispute Resolution Clause Qualify as Arbitration? Mediation or Arbitration

The Supreme Court ruled that Article 20 of the Concession Agreements between MCD and private contractors did not constitute a valid arbitration clause under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court emphasized that clauses lacking mutual intent, impartial adjudication, and procedural fairness cannot be enforced as arbitration agreements, directing parties to pursue alternative remedies. The judgment reiterated the essential elements of arbitration clauses from K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi (1998) and upheld precedent in SDMC v. SMS AAMW Tollways (2019). Facts Of The Case: The case involved three separate appeals before the Supreme Court concerning Concession Agreements between the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and private contractors (SMS Ltd., DSC Ltd., and CCC ...

Supreme Court Clarifies: When Can an Arbitral Award Be Challenged for Lack of Jurisdiction?

The Supreme Court ruled that an arbitral award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, cannot be annulled solely for lack of jurisdiction if no plea was raised before the tribunal under Section 16(2). It harmonized conflicting precedents, holding that objections under Section 34 must show strong grounds, and upheld the finality of awards where jurisdictional challenges were untimely. The judgment clarifies that the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Act 1983, does not automatically override arbitration agreements unless jurisdictional objections are raised at the appropriate stage. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a contractual dispute between M/s Gayatri Projects Limited and Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation regarding road construction works in Madhya Pradesh. The parties...