https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332570 The Court held that the petitioner, engaged in rice production and export, was entitled to a refund of an encashed amount under the EPCG scheme. It was determined that the petitioner did not need to approach the Assistant Commissioner (Refunds) and could directly seek the refund from the first respondent, who had already cancelled the bond and bank guarantee upon compliance. The Court directed the petitioner to submit a representation to the third respondent for the refund, to be processed within eight weeks. No costs were awarded in this case. en-us Tue, 30 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Nov 2016 11:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332570 The Court held that the petitioner, engaged in rice production and export, was entitled to a refund of an encashed amount under the EPCG scheme. It was determined that the petitioner did not need to approach the Assistant Commissioner (Refunds) and could directly seek the refund from the first respondent, who had already cancelled the bond and bank guarantee upon compliance. The Court directed the petitioner to submit a representation to the third respondent for the refund, to be processed within eight weeks. No costs were awarded in this case. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 30 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332570