<?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>2001 (4) TMI 695 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102658</link>
    <description>A bank guarantee furnished under an EPCG import licence, given to secure export-performance obligations, was held outside the protection of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 because the section applies only to guarantees connected with loans or advances to a sick industrial company. The court also held that the public notice dated 6-4-1999 did not create an automatic extension of time to fulfil export obligations; the licence-holder had to apply within the prescribed time and satisfy the stipulated conditions, including furnishing the required bank guarantee. On that basis, the guarantee invocation was not barred and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:24:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139704" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (4) TMI 695 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102658</link>
      <description>A bank guarantee furnished under an EPCG import licence, given to secure export-performance obligations, was held outside the protection of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 because the section applies only to guarantees connected with loans or advances to a sick industrial company. The court also held that the public notice dated 6-4-1999 did not create an automatic extension of time to fulfil export obligations; the licence-holder had to apply within the prescribed time and satisfy the stipulated conditions, including furnishing the required bank guarantee. On that basis, the guarantee invocation was not barred and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102658</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>