TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Dismissed: CESTAT Validates Customs Decision on VABAL Transferees' Non-liability for Original License Compliance.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS), BOMBAY Versus HICO ENTERPRISES</h3> The appeal challenging the CESTAT's decision was dismissed. The Tribunal determined that the customs department's satisfaction regarding export ... Appellant purchased transferable Value Based Advance Licenses(VABAL) – allegation of contravention of conditions of not. No. 203/92 - Customs department cannot compel the appellants importer, who are the transferee, to once again prove that the export obligation has been fulfilled by the original licence-holder in accordance with the notification and without availing input stage credit - It is the original licencee, who has to satisfy the above condition, but not the transferee of the licence Issues:Challenge to order passed by Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowing the appeal filed by the appellant.Analysis:The appellant acquired transferable Value Based Advance Licenses (VABAL) and imported consignment based on it. A show cause notice was issued alleging contravention of certain conditions of Notification No. 203/92-Cus. The Commissioner confirmed the demand, holding the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. Penalties were also levied under Section 112(a) of the Act. The matter was referred to a larger Bench of the Tribunal.The Tribunal held that the satisfaction regarding export obligations is final and binding on the customs department, and the transferee cannot be compelled to prove fulfillment of conditions by the original license holder. The transferee is not required to fulfill the conditions of the notification. The Tribunal's decision was based on these considerations.In the appeal, the challenge was made to the conclusions reached by the Tribunal. However, it was noted that the show cause notice did not reference the alleged infraction by the original license holder, M/s. Amar Taran Exports. As a result, the judgment of the CESTAT was found to be free from any infirmity that would justify interference. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
