<?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>1992 (2) TMI 207 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81695</link>
    <description>Project Import benefit under Heading 84.66 was available only if the contract had been registered in accordance with the Project Imports (Registration of Contract) Regulations, 1965 before the customs authority passed the clearance or warehousing order. An earlier application did not by itself secure the concession, because it still had to be supported by the prescribed particulars, documents and sponsoring authority&#039;s recommendation. As the recommendation and registration came only after the warehousing order, the statutory precondition was not met. The claim for project import concession was therefore unavailable, and denial of refund was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:33:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118840" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (2) TMI 207 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81695</link>
      <description>Project Import benefit under Heading 84.66 was available only if the contract had been registered in accordance with the Project Imports (Registration of Contract) Regulations, 1965 before the customs authority passed the clearance or warehousing order. An earlier application did not by itself secure the concession, because it still had to be supported by the prescribed particulars, documents and sponsoring authority&#039;s recommendation. As the recommendation and registration came only after the warehousing order, the statutory precondition was not met. The claim for project import concession was therefore unavailable, and denial of refund was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81695</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>