https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335988 Under Notification No. 110/95-Cus, exemption could not be denied merely because exports were made from a different factory, where the licensing authority's certificate confirmed full fulfilment of export obligation under the EPCG licence. The analysis states that the relevant notification required certification by the authority as to the extent of obligation met, and the DGFT certificate advising release of the bank guarantee or LUT was treated as determinative. Revenue could not ignore that certificate unless it obtained a specific contrary clarification from the same authority excluding those exports for EPCG purposes. The appeal succeeded and consequential relief followed. en-us Tue, 15 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Feb 2018 13:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335988 Under Notification No. 110/95-Cus, exemption could not be denied merely because exports were made from a different factory, where the licensing authority's certificate confirmed full fulfilment of export obligation under the EPCG licence. The analysis states that the relevant notification required certification by the authority as to the extent of obligation met, and the DGFT certificate advising release of the bank guarantee or LUT was treated as determinative. Revenue could not ignore that certificate unless it obtained a specific contrary clarification from the same authority excluding those exports for EPCG purposes. The appeal succeeded and consequential relief followed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 15 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335988