https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377643 After amalgamation, the transferee entity could seek amendment of advance authorisations to replace the original name and IEC, because the liabilities and pending export obligations had passed to the new legal entity and the policy circular contemplated such substitution. The rejection on the ground that the authorisation was non-transferable was unsustainable. The authorities were also wrong to refuse extension of the export obligation period, since the Handbook of Procedures and later policy notices recognised that facility for relevant advance authorisations. The impugned orders were quashed, and the authorisations were directed to be amended with a six-month extension for discharge of export obligations. en-us Fri, 22 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Aug 2019 11:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377643 After amalgamation, the transferee entity could seek amendment of advance authorisations to replace the original name and IEC, because the liabilities and pending export obligations had passed to the new legal entity and the policy circular contemplated such substitution. The rejection on the ground that the authorisation was non-transferable was unsustainable. The authorities were also wrong to refuse extension of the export obligation period, since the Handbook of Procedures and later policy notices recognised that facility for relevant advance authorisations. The impugned orders were quashed, and the authorisations were directed to be amended with a six-month extension for discharge of export obligations. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 22 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377643