1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- 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.
<h1>Importers denied concessional duty rate for failing to possess valid license at time of import under Notification No. 160/92-Cus.</h1> The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, ruling that the importers were not entitled to the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. ... EXIM - EPCG Licence, date of effect Issues:Interpretation of Notification No. 160/92-Cus. dt. 20-4-92 as amended regarding the eligibility for concessional rate of duty based on possession of a valid license at the time of import.Analysis:The case involved an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the eligibility of importers for the benefit of Notification No. 160/92-Cus. The issue was whether the importers were entitled to the concessional rate of duty under the notification due to possession of a valid license at the time of import.The appellants argued that the delay in issuing licenses by the DGFT should not affect their eligibility for the concessional rate of duty. They contended that the licenses issued after the import should relate back to the dates of the decisions by the EPCG Committee, making them eligible for the benefit. However, the Tribunal found these submissions untenable as the notification explicitly required possession of a valid license issued on or after 1-5-95 by the DGFT at the time of import.The Tribunal emphasized that the language of the notification was clear in mandating the possession of a valid license at the time of import to avail the concessional rate of duty. Since the licenses were issued after the import, the importers did not meet the requirement specified in the notification. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the appeals, ruling that neither of the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the concessional rate of duty for the goods imported in March'95.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on a strict interpretation of the notification's requirements regarding the possession of a valid license at the time of import to qualify for the concessional rate of duty. The Tribunal clarified that the doctrine of dating back and relating back could not be applied in this case, as the notification's language clearly specified the timing of license possession for eligibility, which the appellants did not meet.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
