<?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>2014 (2) TMI 642 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244047</link>
    <description>Duty Free Replenishment Certificates issued under the DFRC scheme remained subject to the Handbook of Procedures, under which validity depended on shipment or dispatch of goods within the prescribed period and revalidation was allowed only on merits within stipulated limits. As no shipment was made before expiry, the certificates lapsed on 31 January 2005, and the record showed no administrative delay by the customs or licensing authorities. The petitioner also gave no satisfactory explanation for its own delay, and the competent authorities had already rejected revalidation. On these facts, no entitlement to revalidation or other relief was established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Feb 2014 19:27:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346233" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (2) TMI 642 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244047</link>
      <description>Duty Free Replenishment Certificates issued under the DFRC scheme remained subject to the Handbook of Procedures, under which validity depended on shipment or dispatch of goods within the prescribed period and revalidation was allowed only on merits within stipulated limits. As no shipment was made before expiry, the certificates lapsed on 31 January 2005, and the record showed no administrative delay by the customs or licensing authorities. The petitioner also gave no satisfactory explanation for its own delay, and the competent authorities had already rejected revalidation. On these facts, no entitlement to revalidation or other relief was established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244047</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>