<?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 917 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446026</link>
    <description>Refund of additional duty of customs under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus cannot be denied on minor defects in invoice endorsement or omission of the importer&#039;s name where the goods were sold through a consignment agent or stockist and the substantive refund conditions were otherwise met. The invoice contained the Bill of Entry details and a declaration that no credit of additional duty had been availed, and the Board&#039;s circular recognised refunds in such sales subject to authorisation and Chartered Accountant certification. The procedural lapse was treated as verifiable from contemporaneous records and insufficient to defeat substantial compliance, so the refund was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Nov 2023 07:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=732815" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (11) TMI 917 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446026</link>
      <description>Refund of additional duty of customs under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus cannot be denied on minor defects in invoice endorsement or omission of the importer&#039;s name where the goods were sold through a consignment agent or stockist and the substantive refund conditions were otherwise met. The invoice contained the Bill of Entry details and a declaration that no credit of additional duty had been availed, and the Board&#039;s circular recognised refunds in such sales subject to authorisation and Chartered Accountant certification. The procedural lapse was treated as verifiable from contemporaneous records and insufficient to defeat substantial compliance, so the refund was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446026</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>