<?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>2023 (11) TMI 112 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445221</link>
    <description>Export drawback could not be denied where the export proceeds were ultimately realised in full and the bank realisation certificates were accepted on verification. Delay in receiving part of the proceeds beyond the prescribed period was treated as a procedural lapse, not a failure of the substantive export and realisation requirement. As no revenue loss was shown and the beneficial export incentive scheme was otherwise satisfied, technical non-compliance was held insufficient to justify recovery of the drawback amount.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Nov 2023 08:20:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=731133" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (11) TMI 112 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445221</link>
      <description>Export drawback could not be denied where the export proceeds were ultimately realised in full and the bank realisation certificates were accepted on verification. Delay in receiving part of the proceeds beyond the prescribed period was treated as a procedural lapse, not a failure of the substantive export and realisation requirement. As no revenue loss was shown and the beneficial export incentive scheme was otherwise satisfied, technical non-compliance was held insufficient to justify recovery of the drawback amount.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445221</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>