https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379267 Notification No. 93/2004-Cus benefit was treated as unavailable only where the imported goods failed to match the authorised description; a mismatch in ITC (HS) heading alone was not decisive. The SION norms covered the goods, and the licensing authority's minutes clarified that the change in ITC (HS) code did not affect entitlement under the advance authorisation. The amendment was treated as procedural rather than substantive, so its retrospective operation was accepted for exemption purposes. Denial of the notification benefit on the ground of classification mismatch was therefore not sustainable on these facts. en-us Thu, 25 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Nov 2019 13:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379267 Notification No. 93/2004-Cus benefit was treated as unavailable only where the imported goods failed to match the authorised description; a mismatch in ITC (HS) heading alone was not decisive. The SION norms covered the goods, and the licensing authority's minutes clarified that the change in ITC (HS) code did not affect entitlement under the advance authorisation. The amendment was treated as procedural rather than substantive, so its retrospective operation was accepted for exemption purposes. Denial of the notification benefit on the ground of classification mismatch was therefore not sustainable on these facts. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 25 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379267