https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384730 The EPCG export obligation period had already been extended by two years from the original expiry date, and the petitioners sought a fresh prospective extension from the date of the extension order as well as further time to comply. The Court noted the belated request, non-compliance with the export obligation requirements within time, and the fact that the petitioners had already received the policy benefit of an extension. As no ground was made out for interference in writ jurisdiction, the challenge to the rejection of further extension failed. en-us Thu, 01 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Nov 2019 18:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384730 The EPCG export obligation period had already been extended by two years from the original expiry date, and the petitioners sought a fresh prospective extension from the date of the extension order as well as further time to comply. The Court noted the belated request, non-compliance with the export obligation requirements within time, and the fact that the petitioners had already received the policy benefit of an extension. As no ground was made out for interference in writ jurisdiction, the challenge to the rejection of further extension failed. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 01 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384730