TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the goods imported under the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme by a licence issued on 3-5-1995 were governed by Notification No. 160/92-Cus., as amended, or by Notification No. 110/95-Cus., and whether duty and interest were rightly demanded for non-fulfilment of export obligation.
Analysis: Notification No. 160/92-Cus. stood amended to cover valid licences issued on or before 30-4-1995, while Notification No. 110/95-Cus. applied to valid licences issued on or after 1-5-1995. Since the licence in question was issued on 3-5-1995, the applicable exemption regime was Notification No. 110/95-Cus. The DGFT circular relied upon by the importer concerned only the time schedule for fulfilment of export obligation and did not affect the applicability of the customs notifications. As the export obligation under the applicable notification was not fulfilled, the duty demand and interest were sustained.
Conclusion: Notification No. 110/95-Cus. was applicable and the demand of duty with interest was valid; the appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where two exemption notifications prescribe different cut-off dates for EPCG licences, the notification in force and applicable to the licence date governs clearance and liability, and misdescription in the bill of entry does not confer an inapplicable exemption.
TaxTMI 
