<?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>2008 (12) TMI 137 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33678</link>
    <description>Under the EPCG scheme, customs concession was linked to fulfilment of the export obligation under the Export and Import Policy, 2002-2007, and compliance could be examined by Customs. However, where the licensing authority had redeemed the licence after accepting fulfilment, that acceptance could not be disregarded without valid reasons. On the facts, the imported vehicles were shown to have been used for the licensed travel and tour services, and the broader licence wording did not support restricting export obligation credit only to direct earnings from the cars. The Tribunal therefore found no basis to sustain confiscation, duty demand, redemption fine, or penalties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72307" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (12) TMI 137 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33678</link>
      <description>Under the EPCG scheme, customs concession was linked to fulfilment of the export obligation under the Export and Import Policy, 2002-2007, and compliance could be examined by Customs. However, where the licensing authority had redeemed the licence after accepting fulfilment, that acceptance could not be disregarded without valid reasons. On the facts, the imported vehicles were shown to have been used for the licensed travel and tour services, and the broader licence wording did not support restricting export obligation credit only to direct earnings from the cars. The Tribunal therefore found no basis to sustain confiscation, duty demand, redemption fine, or penalties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33678</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>