https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198852 The case involved a dispute over the confirmation of demand against the assessee for importing duty-free raw material without submitting the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) as required by Notification No. 93/2004-Cus. The Commissioner upheld the demand, interest, and penalties due to the absence of EODC. However, the higher appellate authority under DGFT set aside the order and directed a review to determine if export obligations were fulfilled. The Tribunal emphasized that while EODC is sufficient evidence for releasing advance licenses, its production is not explicitly mandated, allowing for verification through other evidence. The matter was remanded for further examination of export facts and developments. en-us Wed, 05 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Feb 2018 07:28:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198852 The case involved a dispute over the confirmation of demand against the assessee for importing duty-free raw material without submitting the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) as required by Notification No. 93/2004-Cus. The Commissioner upheld the demand, interest, and penalties due to the absence of EODC. However, the higher appellate authority under DGFT set aside the order and directed a review to determine if export obligations were fulfilled. The Tribunal emphasized that while EODC is sufficient evidence for releasing advance licenses, its production is not explicitly mandated, allowing for verification through other evidence. The matter was remanded for further examination of export facts and developments. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 05 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198852