https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345595 A pending exemption application did not, by itself, suspend liability to comply with an existing demand for cost recovery charges. The Court declined to decide entitlement to exemption on merits, but held that exemption notifications must be applied strictly in accordance with the prescribed conditions, including those reflected in CBEC Circular No. 16/2013-Cus. dated 10.04.2013. To balance recovery with preservation of the exemption claim, the Court required payment of quantified arrears, part-payment for the subsequent period, and security for the balance, while directing the competent authority to consider the exemption application on merits. No substantive exemption relief was granted. en-us Mon, 17 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Jan 2018 11:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345595 A pending exemption application did not, by itself, suspend liability to comply with an existing demand for cost recovery charges. The Court declined to decide entitlement to exemption on merits, but held that exemption notifications must be applied strictly in accordance with the prescribed conditions, including those reflected in CBEC Circular No. 16/2013-Cus. dated 10.04.2013. To balance recovery with preservation of the exemption claim, the Court required payment of quantified arrears, part-payment for the subsequent period, and security for the balance, while directing the competent authority to consider the exemption application on merits. No substantive exemption relief was granted. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 17 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345595