<?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>1995 (8) TMI 128 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84517</link>
    <description>An import licence dispute concerned whether populated printed circuit boards were covered by the licence and whether customs could disregard endorsements made by the licensing authority and DGTD. The majority treated the specific list attached to the licence and the relevant import-policy endorsement as covering the goods, and held that the adjudicating authority had gone beyond the show cause notice by reclassifying the goods as capital goods on a basis not pleaded by the department. The confiscation order was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for de novo adjudication. A dissenting view considered the extended validity endorsement limited to capital goods and supported confiscation and redemption fine.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:36:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121661" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (8) TMI 128 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84517</link>
      <description>An import licence dispute concerned whether populated printed circuit boards were covered by the licence and whether customs could disregard endorsements made by the licensing authority and DGTD. The majority treated the specific list attached to the licence and the relevant import-policy endorsement as covering the goods, and held that the adjudicating authority had gone beyond the show cause notice by reclassifying the goods as capital goods on a basis not pleaded by the department. The confiscation order was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for de novo adjudication. A dissenting view considered the extended validity endorsement limited to capital goods and supported confiscation and redemption fine.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84517</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>