<?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 (10) TMI 41 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217087</link>
    <description>A timely show cause notice was treated as the operative notice for limitation because addendum and corrigendum did not create a fresh notice. On merits, the record showed unauthorised movement of finished goods, unfinished goods and duty-free raw materials from a 100% EOU to DTA group units without proper permission, supported by delivery challans, Section 108 statements and related records. The authority treated compliance with prior permission and other statutory conditions as mandatory, not a mere procedural formality, and upheld recovery of drawback under Section 75A(2) together with penalties under Sections 114 and 112(b)(ii). The limitation objection and merits challenge were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2012 15:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=190465" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (10) TMI 41 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217087</link>
      <description>A timely show cause notice was treated as the operative notice for limitation because addendum and corrigendum did not create a fresh notice. On merits, the record showed unauthorised movement of finished goods, unfinished goods and duty-free raw materials from a 100% EOU to DTA group units without proper permission, supported by delivery challans, Section 108 statements and related records. The authority treated compliance with prior permission and other statutory conditions as mandatory, not a mere procedural formality, and upheld recovery of drawback under Section 75A(2) together with penalties under Sections 114 and 112(b)(ii). The limitation objection and merits challenge were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217087</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>