<?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>2017 (3) TMI 1112 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340609</link>
    <description>The appeal challenging the dropping of proceedings under the duty exemption entitlement scheme was dismissed. The show cause notice aimed to recover foregone duty on imports under exemption no. 203/92-Cus. The demand under the Customs Act, 1962, with penalties, was confirmed, highlighting a limitation issue. The respondent, a non-manufacturer or exporter, utilized an advance license for duty-free import. The review order was criticized for lack of concrete evidence. The judgment emphasized limitations on recovery provisions against the transferee of an advance license. The appeal was rejected, upholding the impugned order based on legal principles concerning transfer of advance licenses and export obligation fulfillment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2017 07:16:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=462490" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 1112 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340609</link>
      <description>The appeal challenging the dropping of proceedings under the duty exemption entitlement scheme was dismissed. The show cause notice aimed to recover foregone duty on imports under exemption no. 203/92-Cus. The demand under the Customs Act, 1962, with penalties, was confirmed, highlighting a limitation issue. The respondent, a non-manufacturer or exporter, utilized an advance license for duty-free import. The review order was criticized for lack of concrete evidence. The judgment emphasized limitations on recovery provisions against the transferee of an advance license. The appeal was rejected, upholding the impugned order based on legal principles concerning transfer of advance licenses and export obligation fulfillment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340609</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>