<?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>1999 (3) TMI 194 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90893</link>
    <description>Refund of customs duty on goods cleared from an Export Processing Zone to the Domestic Tariff Area was unavailable because the clearance did not satisfy the mandatory condition in Notification No. 133/94-Cus requiring prior permission of the Development Commissioner. A customs-endorsed gate pass and a request for permission did not amount to permission actually granted, and the customs authority had to be satisfied that the condition was met. As the exemption condition was not complied with, the clearance was not duly authorised under the notification and the refund claim failed. The separate allegation of excess payment was left to be pursued before the lower authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2011 13:27:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127955" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (3) TMI 194 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90893</link>
      <description>Refund of customs duty on goods cleared from an Export Processing Zone to the Domestic Tariff Area was unavailable because the clearance did not satisfy the mandatory condition in Notification No. 133/94-Cus requiring prior permission of the Development Commissioner. A customs-endorsed gate pass and a request for permission did not amount to permission actually granted, and the customs authority had to be satisfied that the condition was met. As the exemption condition was not complied with, the clearance was not duly authorised under the notification and the refund claim failed. The separate allegation of excess payment was left to be pursued before the lower authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90893</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>