<?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 (7) TMI 363 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206763</link>
    <description>Amendment of shipping bills under section 149 of the Customs Act was held to depend on verification of the export records, and the absence of a statutory time limit could not be substituted by a one-month limit in a departmental circular. The tribunal accepted that the export transactions and available original shipping bills were relevant evidence, but directed confirmation from DGFT and Customs records on whether the 191 shipping bills had already been used to discharge EPCG export obligation. The rejection of amendment was therefore set aside, and the matter was remanded for amendment of the shipping bills and consequential consideration of Focus Market Scheme scrips if verification supported the claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2014 16:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=180247" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (7) TMI 363 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206763</link>
      <description>Amendment of shipping bills under section 149 of the Customs Act was held to depend on verification of the export records, and the absence of a statutory time limit could not be substituted by a one-month limit in a departmental circular. The tribunal accepted that the export transactions and available original shipping bills were relevant evidence, but directed confirmation from DGFT and Customs records on whether the 191 shipping bills had already been used to discharge EPCG export obligation. The rejection of amendment was therefore set aside, and the matter was remanded for amendment of the shipping bills and consequential consideration of Focus Market Scheme scrips if verification supported the claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206763</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>