<?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>2019 (4) TMI 1963 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294581</link>
    <description>Where the licensing authority has redeemed an EPCG authorisation and certified full discharge of the export obligation, customs cannot later deny the corresponding exemption by re-agitating compliance with the EPCG conditions on a contrary view of the service exports. The imported capital goods were recorded as installed at the appellant&#039;s premises, and the export obligation statement filed before DGFT described the exports as cargo handling services. Since DGFT issued a redemption letter confirming fulfilment of the authorisation, the customs authorities could not reopen the issue merely by disputing the nature of the service exports. The exemption denial was therefore unsustainable, and the customs demand, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Apr 2021 08:47:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=642412" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 1963 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294581</link>
      <description>Where the licensing authority has redeemed an EPCG authorisation and certified full discharge of the export obligation, customs cannot later deny the corresponding exemption by re-agitating compliance with the EPCG conditions on a contrary view of the service exports. The imported capital goods were recorded as installed at the appellant&#039;s premises, and the export obligation statement filed before DGFT described the exports as cargo handling services. Since DGFT issued a redemption letter confirming fulfilment of the authorisation, the customs authorities could not reopen the issue merely by disputing the nature of the service exports. The exemption denial was therefore unsustainable, and the customs demand, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294581</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>