<?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>1998 (8) TMI 290 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90530</link>
    <description>Customs exemption under the relevant notifications turned on whether an eligibility certificate was a substantive precondition or a later curable formality. The majority treated prior application for the certificate as part of substantive compliance, holding that certificates obtained only after importation and clearance, especially after a substantial delay, could not support the exemption. It distinguished earlier authorities where the application had been made before importation or clearance and only issuance or production was delayed. The dissent viewed the certificate as merely evidentiary and procedural, and considered that pre-importation filing was not required.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Oct 2011 11:45:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127592" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (8) TMI 290 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90530</link>
      <description>Customs exemption under the relevant notifications turned on whether an eligibility certificate was a substantive precondition or a later curable formality. The majority treated prior application for the certificate as part of substantive compliance, holding that certificates obtained only after importation and clearance, especially after a substantial delay, could not support the exemption. It distinguished earlier authorities where the application had been made before importation or clearance and only issuance or production was delayed. The dissent viewed the certificate as merely evidentiary and procedural, and considered that pre-importation filing was not required.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90530</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>