<?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>1996 (3) TMI 312 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85600</link>
    <description>Customs authorities could not refuse Notification No. 203/92 exemption on the ground that value based advance licences lacked quantity restrictions or were said to conflict with the import policy. The notification required verification only of the express conditions for exemption, namely production of a value based DEEC and compliance with the bond and undertaking requirements. The authorities had no jurisdiction to go behind the licence or deny the benefit on an extraneous policy objection. A contemporaneous DGFT clarification also supported that quantity restriction was not required when the licences were issued. Duty-free clearance was therefore upheld and the departmental appeals failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Aug 2011 11:08:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122667" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 312 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85600</link>
      <description>Customs authorities could not refuse Notification No. 203/92 exemption on the ground that value based advance licences lacked quantity restrictions or were said to conflict with the import policy. The notification required verification only of the express conditions for exemption, namely production of a value based DEEC and compliance with the bond and undertaking requirements. The authorities had no jurisdiction to go behind the licence or deny the benefit on an extraneous policy objection. A contemporaneous DGFT clarification also supported that quantity restriction was not required when the licences were issued. Duty-free clearance was therefore upheld and the departmental appeals failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85600</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>