<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2021 (3) TMI 444 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405116</link>
    <description>Administrative policy circulars cannot add substantive conditions or redefine eligibility under the Foreign Trade Policy framed by the Central Government under section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, so circulars that recast a shipping agent as a mere aggregator were ultra vires. SEIS entitlement must be assessed under the policy&#039;s own criteria for notified service providers in India and the foreign exchange earned for the service activity; where the petitioner performed the contractual services and received foreign exchange for them, benefit could not be denied by shifting credit to downstream providers. The refusal order, show-cause notices, and consequential recovery action were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2021 09:17:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=638636" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (3) TMI 444 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405116</link>
      <description>Administrative policy circulars cannot add substantive conditions or redefine eligibility under the Foreign Trade Policy framed by the Central Government under section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, so circulars that recast a shipping agent as a mere aggregator were ultra vires. SEIS entitlement must be assessed under the policy&#039;s own criteria for notified service providers in India and the foreign exchange earned for the service activity; where the petitioner performed the contractual services and received foreign exchange for them, benefit could not be denied by shifting credit to downstream providers. The refusal order, show-cause notices, and consequential recovery action were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405116</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>