Judgment :- 1. These writ petitions are filed to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the impugned letter dated 24.10.2002 & 29.10.2002 respectively bearing Ref.F.No.601/5201/39/2000-DBK of the second respondent and quash the same. 2. The petitioner in both the cases is the partnership company engaged in manufacture of 100% cotton power loom gray cloth falling under Chapter 52 of Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. The product is exempted from Excise duty and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to cenvat credit (formerly Modvat credit) on the duty paid on the inputs that will go into the manufacture of the said final product. The petitioner-exporter has availed one of the benefits available under the Export and Import policy for the year 1997-2002 namely the benefits under the Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPB) whereby, the incidence of customs duty on import content of export products was nutralized by extending DEPB Credit. This is in terms of para 7.14 of the Export and Import policy 1997-2002. The petitioner also availed the benefit given in circular No.68 of 1997 dated 2.12.97 whereby the petitioner availed brand rate of drawback on the excise duty paid on indigenous inputs. The petitioner also claimed the benefit of Circular 39/99 Cus. dated 25.6.1999, which extended the said benefit in respect of processed fabrics as well. In this regard, the petitioner filed DEPB-cum-drawback shipping bills and made a claim on various dates based on the letter issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, dated 6.7.2000 fixing the drawback rate at 100% grey woven fabrics. 3. Similar drawback brand rate letters were issued by the Ministry of Finance on 19.6.2000 and 13.9.2006 and the drawback amounts were also sanctioned and paid. Thereafter, the impugned letters dated 24.10.2002 and 29.10.2002 were issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India in the following manner in respect of W.P.Nos. 43970 and 43977 of 2002, which read as follows:- "Sub: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules 1955 – extension of Brand Rate of Drawback Scheme to exports under DEPB Scheme – Goods exported against DEPB cum Drawback Shipping Bills – Revocation of Rate Letter – Regarding. .... I am directed to refer to this Ministry's letter of even number (misc.404) dated 6.7.2000 determining brand rate of drawback in respect of the goods exported by you against DEPB-cum-Drawback shipping bills. 2. .... I am directed to refer to this Ministry's letter of even number (misc.404) dated 6.7.2000 determining brand rate of drawback in respect of the goods exported by you against DEPB-cum-Drawback shipping bills. 2. The issue of eligibility of Brand Rate of Duty Drawback in respect of goods exported under DEPB against DEPB cum Drawback Shipping Bills has been clarified by issuance of Circular No.39/2001-Cus.6.7.2001. It was also stated in Para-6 of the Circular dated 6.7.2001 that the decisions in respect of past exports made against DEPB cum DBK shipping bills where brand rate of drawback has already been granted shall be examined separately. 3. Now on re-examination of your case in the light of aforesaid circular dated 6.7.2001, it has been decided to revoke the afore-mentioned brand rate letter with immediate effect." 4. The said impugned revocation letters based on the circular No.39/2001 Cus, dated 6.7.2001 are challenged by the petitioner on several grounds. Insofar as the present writ petitions are concerned, the issue can be considered on a narrow point whereby the plea taken by the petitioner that the impugned letters revoking the brand rate letter is only on the basis of the circular No.39/01 Cus., dated 6.7.2001 is bad if applied retrospectively as admittedly the benefit of brand rate was granted to the petitioner on the basis of the earlier circulars viz., Circular No.68 of 1997, dated 2.12.1997 and the subsequent circular 39/99 Cus., dated 25.6.99 and the drawback shipping bills were accepted and the payments were made. The circular can apply only prospectively and not retrospectively. 5. Similar issue was considered by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Arviva Industries (I) Ltd., – Vs. - Union of India reported in (2004 (94)ECC 394) where the issue whether the circular No.39/2001, dated 6.7.2001 would operate prospectively or retrospectively was considered by the Bench and held that the circular will operate prospectively only. The petitioner in that case was also manufacture/export of Dyed Polyester Viscos suiting fabrics and the Export and Import Policy is of the same period viz., 1997-2002. They also claimed the benefit of DEPB Scheme and they availed the benefit under two Circulars viz., Circular No.68/97, dated 2.12.1997 and 39/99 dated 25.6.99. The Division Bench held that the amendment in the Board circular is only prospective and cannot be made applicable retrospectively. They also claimed the benefit of DEPB Scheme and they availed the benefit under two Circulars viz., Circular No.68/97, dated 2.12.1997 and 39/99 dated 25.6.99. The Division Bench held that the amendment in the Board circular is only prospective and cannot be made applicable retrospectively. The relevant portion of the above said decision in paragraphs 14 and 17 reads as follows:- "(14) In H.M.Bags Manufacturer, the Apex Court held that circular issued by the Board under Section 37B of the Central Excise Act is effective from the date of the notification or publication. We have no hesitation in holding that the Circular No.39/2001 has to be effective from the date it was issued and published. In other words, the Circular No.39/2001 has to be held to be prospective and cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect. (17) We, accordingly, dispose of the writ petition by following order: I We hold that Circular No.39/2001 is effective prospectively. ii The orders dated 29th October 2002 (Exhibits A to A7) are quashed and set aside. iii The Respondent No.2 is directed to process the applications made for fixation of brand rate of drawback accordingly." This decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India – Vs. - Arviva Industries(I) Ltd. reported in2007 (209)E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) 6. Since the issue has already been decided by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court and confirmed by the Hob'ble Apex Court to the effect that the Circular No.39/2001, dated 6.7.2001 will have effect prospectively, the petitioner, who have already been granted the benefit of drawback on the brand rate in terms of the letter of Minstry of Finance dated 6.7.2000, cannot be denied as the benefit has already accrued and claimed. The impugned letters, under challenge revoking the benefit of brand rate already issued based on the circular 39/2001 Cus. Dated 06.7.2001, which will be effective prospectively, are liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed. No costs.