<?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 (2) TMI 164 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203768</link>
    <description>Foreign exchange receipts from NRI/NRE subscriptions and service activities were not accepted as satisfying the EPCG export obligation because the relevant earnings fell outside the obligation period, and only 14% compliance was found. Duty under the exemption scheme was treated as recoverable only in proportion to the unfulfilled export obligation, not the entire duty foregone, and no interest was held leviable on the duty demand in the absence of statutory or notification authority. Applying the limited scope of writ review over Settlement Commission orders, the court declined interference because no contravention of the governing statute causing prejudice was shown, and the refused extension of time could not be reopened.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2012 17:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=177321" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (2) TMI 164 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203768</link>
      <description>Foreign exchange receipts from NRI/NRE subscriptions and service activities were not accepted as satisfying the EPCG export obligation because the relevant earnings fell outside the obligation period, and only 14% compliance was found. Duty under the exemption scheme was treated as recoverable only in proportion to the unfulfilled export obligation, not the entire duty foregone, and no interest was held leviable on the duty demand in the absence of statutory or notification authority. Applying the limited scope of writ review over Settlement Commission orders, the court declined interference because no contravention of the governing statute causing prejudice was shown, and the refused extension of time could not be reopened.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203768</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>