<?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>2012 (4) TMI 391 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212730</link>
    <description>Conversion of free shipping bills into DEPB shipping bills was refused because the claimant had not satisfied the scheme&#039;s substantive conditions. Compliance with the notification, public notice and circular requirements was mandatory, and the later policy circular did not authorise Customs to grant conversion where none had already been allowed. Exports through Porbandar before it became a specified DEPB port were ineligible, and the later notification could not operate retrospectively. The remaining claims also failed for non-compliance with essential requirements such as proper officer assessment, timely filing, and prescribed markings and particulars. The rejection of conversion and denial of DEPB benefit were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186134" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (4) TMI 391 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212730</link>
      <description>Conversion of free shipping bills into DEPB shipping bills was refused because the claimant had not satisfied the scheme&#039;s substantive conditions. Compliance with the notification, public notice and circular requirements was mandatory, and the later policy circular did not authorise Customs to grant conversion where none had already been allowed. Exports through Porbandar before it became a specified DEPB port were ineligible, and the later notification could not operate retrospectively. The remaining claims also failed for non-compliance with essential requirements such as proper officer assessment, timely filing, and prescribed markings and particulars. The rejection of conversion and denial of DEPB benefit were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212730</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>