<?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>2004 (12) TMI 611 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116095</link>
    <description>Imported goods under an advance licence and duty exemption regime must be used strictly in accordance with the licence conditions, and any outside processing or transfer to third parties requires the prescribed permission where the policy so demands; on the facts, penalty for misuse was upheld, though reduced on quantum. A show cause notice is sufficient if it clearly informs the noticee of the alleged contravention, even where the statutory reference is broadly framed. Separately, export-linked benefits could not be denied for the period after abeyance orders ceased to operate, and the petitioners were held entitled to the claimed benefits for that relevant period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Jun 2012 12:23:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153093" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (12) TMI 611 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116095</link>
      <description>Imported goods under an advance licence and duty exemption regime must be used strictly in accordance with the licence conditions, and any outside processing or transfer to third parties requires the prescribed permission where the policy so demands; on the facts, penalty for misuse was upheld, though reduced on quantum. A show cause notice is sufficient if it clearly informs the noticee of the alleged contravention, even where the statutory reference is broadly framed. Separately, export-linked benefits could not be denied for the period after abeyance orders ceased to operate, and the petitioners were held entitled to the claimed benefits for that relevant period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116095</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>