<?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>2011 (4) TMI 13 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203031</link>
    <description>HC held that Section 149 of the Customs Act does not permit conversion of DEEC/DEPB shipping bills into DEEC/DEPB cum drawback bills after a long delay, especially when such conversion changes the entire nature and status of the documents. The exporter&#039;s plea of being a new exporter and having made a procedural mistake was rejected. Applying CBEC Circular No. 4/2004, the Commissioner rightly refused conversion/amendment sought more than one year after export, when necessary verification of goods and documents was no longer possible. CESTAT&#039;s affirmance of this view disclosed no perversity or illegality. No substantial question of law arose and the appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2025 14:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176601" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (4) TMI 13 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203031</link>
      <description>HC held that Section 149 of the Customs Act does not permit conversion of DEEC/DEPB shipping bills into DEEC/DEPB cum drawback bills after a long delay, especially when such conversion changes the entire nature and status of the documents. The exporter&#039;s plea of being a new exporter and having made a procedural mistake was rejected. Applying CBEC Circular No. 4/2004, the Commissioner rightly refused conversion/amendment sought more than one year after export, when necessary verification of goods and documents was no longer possible. CESTAT&#039;s affirmance of this view disclosed no perversity or illegality. No substantial question of law arose and the appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203031</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>