<?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 (4) TMI 695 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406579</link>
    <description>The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a writ petition seeking permission to import Calcined Petroleum Coke and Raw Petroleum Coke into an SEZ for manufacturing, blending and re-export could not be maintained where the Supreme Court had already fixed outer import limits and rejected enhancement requests covering the same commodities and use. The Court accepted that the earlier applications had expressly sought higher limits for the SEZ unit, so the argument that the rejection orders showed non-application of mind failed. On that basis, materially identical relief could not be granted by recasting the request as SEZ-based import permission, and the challenge to the rejection of the representations was unsuccessful.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Oct 2024 15:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=642067" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (4) TMI 695 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406579</link>
      <description>The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a writ petition seeking permission to import Calcined Petroleum Coke and Raw Petroleum Coke into an SEZ for manufacturing, blending and re-export could not be maintained where the Supreme Court had already fixed outer import limits and rejected enhancement requests covering the same commodities and use. The Court accepted that the earlier applications had expressly sought higher limits for the SEZ unit, so the argument that the rejection orders showed non-application of mind failed. On that basis, materially identical relief could not be granted by recasting the request as SEZ-based import permission, and the challenge to the rejection of the representations was unsuccessful.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406579</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>