https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351617 The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned order and providing consequential relief to the appellant. It found that the alleged violations regarding the installation of imported capital goods at unapproved premises were procedural lapses rather than substantive violations. The appellant rectified the procedural lapses, fulfilled the export obligation under the EPCG scheme, and met the substantive conditions of the scheme. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of differentiating between procedural and substantive compliance in regulatory matters, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant. en-us Tue, 21 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Feb 2019 15:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351617 The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned order and providing consequential relief to the appellant. It found that the alleged violations regarding the installation of imported capital goods at unapproved premises were procedural lapses rather than substantive violations. The appellant rectified the procedural lapses, fulfilled the export obligation under the EPCG scheme, and met the substantive conditions of the scheme. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of differentiating between procedural and substantive compliance in regulatory matters, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 21 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351617