<?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>2013 (7) TMI 571 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235413</link>
    <description>Failure to declare the correct source of procurement in drawback declarations was treated as suppression of material facts, justifying recovery of duty drawback and issuance of the show cause notice. The Government held that Circulars 54/2001-Cus. and 64/2001-Cus. were not complied with, and later clarification in Circular No. 16/2009 could not be applied retrospectively to cure the defect. It also found Rule 16A inapplicable as realization of export proceeds did not prevent recovery where the drawback conditions were violated. Penalty was upheld because vital information was withheld to obtain the benefit, and the notice was not time-barred since the extended period was validly invoked.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:47:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=197823" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (7) TMI 571 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235413</link>
      <description>Failure to declare the correct source of procurement in drawback declarations was treated as suppression of material facts, justifying recovery of duty drawback and issuance of the show cause notice. The Government held that Circulars 54/2001-Cus. and 64/2001-Cus. were not complied with, and later clarification in Circular No. 16/2009 could not be applied retrospectively to cure the defect. It also found Rule 16A inapplicable as realization of export proceeds did not prevent recovery where the drawback conditions were violated. Penalty was upheld because vital information was withheld to obtain the benefit, and the notice was not time-barred since the extended period was validly invoked.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235413</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>