https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35290 Exemption under Notification No. 28/2001-C.E. could not be refused merely because a separate advance release order was not produced when the DGFT had issued an invalidation letter and clarified that it was the functional equivalent of an ARO. The Tribunal treated the procedural requirement as subordinate to the substantive condition that supplies be made to the advance licence holder whose licence had been invalidated. Where the licensing authority itself declined to issue a separate ARO and recognised the invalidation letter as sufficient, insistence on a separate document would defeat the policy intent behind the Foreign Trade Policy and the exemption notification. The benefit of exemption was therefore available on these facts. en-us Wed, 08 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35290 Exemption under Notification No. 28/2001-C.E. could not be refused merely because a separate advance release order was not produced when the DGFT had issued an invalidation letter and clarified that it was the functional equivalent of an ARO. The Tribunal treated the procedural requirement as subordinate to the substantive condition that supplies be made to the advance licence holder whose licence had been invalidated. Where the licensing authority itself declined to issue a separate ARO and recognised the invalidation letter as sufficient, insistence on a separate document would defeat the policy intent behind the Foreign Trade Policy and the exemption notification. The benefit of exemption was therefore available on these facts. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 08 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35290