TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether customs duty could be demanded and the customs adjudicating authority could proceed against the goods when the advance licence and DEEC book were issued under Notification No. 31/97-Cus., and whether the belated plea that the goods were procured under Notification No. 49/94-C.E. (N.T.) ousted customs jurisdiction.
Analysis: The licence and DEEC book were issued for procurement under Notification No. 31/97-Cus., and the goods procured by the appellants were entered in the DEEC book as imports. The licensing authority had not altered the notification under which the goods were to be obtained, and no convincing evidence was produced to show that the goods were cleared under Notification No. 49/94-C.E. (N.T.) or that any relevant bond or intimation had been given to the Central Excise authorities. The plea on jurisdiction was raised for the first time at the appellate stage and was not supported by the record. On merits, failure to fulfil the export obligation meant that the duty foregone under the customs exemption became recoverable.
Conclusion: The customs authority had jurisdiction, the plea based on Notification No. 49/94-C.E. (N.T.) was rejected, and the demand under Notification No. 31/97-Cus. was upheld against the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are obtained under an advance licence issued and registered for customs exemption, and the export obligation is not fulfilled, customs duty foregone under the exemption notification becomes recoverable, and a belated unsupported plea of procurement under a different notification does not oust customs jurisdiction.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
