https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448877 CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal against rejection of shipping bill amendment request. The lower authority had rejected the amendment application citing three-month time limit under Board Circular No. 36/2010. CESTAT held that Section 149 (prior to amendment) prescribed no specific time limit for shipping bill amendments, and the Board cannot impose such restrictions through circular. Following Bombay HC precedent in Colossustex case, the tribunal ruled that rejection based solely on the circular's time limit was unjustified and set aside the impugned order. en-us Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 May 2024 16:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448877 CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal against rejection of shipping bill amendment request. The lower authority had rejected the amendment application citing three-month time limit under Board Circular No. 36/2010. CESTAT held that Section 149 (prior to amendment) prescribed no specific time limit for shipping bill amendments, and the Board cannot impose such restrictions through circular. Following Bombay HC precedent in Colossustex case, the tribunal ruled that rejection based solely on the circular's time limit was unjustified and set aside the impugned order. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448877