<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2008 (9) TMI 479 - CESTAT,  AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75208</link>
    <description>A transferee of a transferable import licence who acquires it bona fide for value and without notice of cancellation or defect may rely on the licence for exemption under Notification No. 117/94-Cus. The majority treated original licences bearing no cancellation on their face, and purchased through brokers in the market, as effective against the buyer where the Revenue&#039;s cancellation case rested mainly on an untested departmental letter without proper corroboration. In the absence of suppression, wilful misstatement or collusion, the extended period under the Customs Act could not be invoked, and the duty demand, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties also failed. The dissent considered the transactions fraudulent and would have sustained the demand and penalties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113480" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 479 - CESTAT,  AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75208</link>
      <description>A transferee of a transferable import licence who acquires it bona fide for value and without notice of cancellation or defect may rely on the licence for exemption under Notification No. 117/94-Cus. The majority treated original licences bearing no cancellation on their face, and purchased through brokers in the market, as effective against the buyer where the Revenue&#039;s cancellation case rested mainly on an untested departmental letter without proper corroboration. In the absence of suppression, wilful misstatement or collusion, the extended period under the Customs Act could not be invoked, and the duty demand, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties also failed. The dissent considered the transactions fraudulent and would have sustained the demand and penalties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75208</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>