https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254966 Refusal to grant a further extension of the export obligation period was upheld because the record showed that the earlier licence endorsement already reflected the appellate order granting extension, and the alleged failure to record permission for alternate exports was unsupported by the record. The challenge to the remand procedure also failed because no prejudice was shown from the absence of a fresh notice, and there was no evidence that any attempt had been made to export an alternate product. The prolonged delay and continued non-fulfilment of the export obligation further supported rejection of the request for additional time. en-us Mon, 24 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jan 2015 06:57:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254966 Refusal to grant a further extension of the export obligation period was upheld because the record showed that the earlier licence endorsement already reflected the appellate order granting extension, and the alleged failure to record permission for alternate exports was unsupported by the record. The challenge to the remand procedure also failed because no prejudice was shown from the absence of a fresh notice, and there was no evidence that any attempt had been made to export an alternate product. The prolonged delay and continued non-fulfilment of the export obligation further supported rejection of the request for additional time. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 24 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254966