<?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 (10) TMI 1152 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238697</link>
    <description>Authorisations issued before 1.4.2007 remained eligible for exemption from additional customs duty and excise duty even after transferability was endorsed, because the amended Foreign Trade Policy provision requiring liability to be noted on the authorisation applied only prospectively to endorsements made after the amendment came into force. The later 2008 policy clarification expressly preserved exemption for pre-1.4.2007 authorisations, and the Board&#039;s circular stated that no recovery action should be taken in such cases. The earlier policy position on the date of issue therefore governed, and the subsequent amendment could not be used to deny the exemption; the duty demand was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Nov 2013 12:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=333653" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (10) TMI 1152 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238697</link>
      <description>Authorisations issued before 1.4.2007 remained eligible for exemption from additional customs duty and excise duty even after transferability was endorsed, because the amended Foreign Trade Policy provision requiring liability to be noted on the authorisation applied only prospectively to endorsements made after the amendment came into force. The later 2008 policy clarification expressly preserved exemption for pre-1.4.2007 authorisations, and the Board&#039;s circular stated that no recovery action should be taken in such cases. The earlier policy position on the date of issue therefore governed, and the subsequent amendment could not be used to deny the exemption; the duty demand was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238697</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>