<?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>2005 (12) TMI 338 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116891</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner&#039;s order for recovery of a drawback amount of approximately Rs. 97 lakhs from the appellant. The Tribunal found no misstatement or fraud by the appellant, attributing the issue to delayed receipt of export proceeds, which was adequately explained and supported by the bank&#039;s confirmation. Referring to the Drawback Rules, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, restoring the drawback amount returned by the appellant. The decision emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the Commissioner&#039;s doubts and ruled in favor of the appellant based on the satisfactory explanation provided and the bank&#039;s confirmation of the remittances&#039; connection to the exported goods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:58:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153889" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 338 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116891</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner&#039;s order for recovery of a drawback amount of approximately Rs. 97 lakhs from the appellant. The Tribunal found no misstatement or fraud by the appellant, attributing the issue to delayed receipt of export proceeds, which was adequately explained and supported by the bank&#039;s confirmation. Referring to the Drawback Rules, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, restoring the drawback amount returned by the appellant. The decision emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the Commissioner&#039;s doubts and ruled in favor of the appellant based on the satisfactory explanation provided and the bank&#039;s confirmation of the remittances&#039; connection to the exported goods.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116891</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>