<?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>2024 (4) TMI 377 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751196</link>
    <description>Import licensing conditions for Chapter 87 required a valid Rule 126 compliance certificate at import and proof of conformity of production under Rule 126A within six months. Although these requirements were mandatory, subsequent vehicle registration, fitness certificates and tourist permits issued by competent transport authorities established compliance with motor vehicle law and fulfilled the policy condition&#039;s objective. Confiscation and penalty for the earlier non-production of the prescribed type-approval or compliance certificate were therefore unsustainable, as the procedural deficiency did not warrant denial of substantive benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2024 08:43:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=749639" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (4) TMI 377 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751196</link>
      <description>Import licensing conditions for Chapter 87 required a valid Rule 126 compliance certificate at import and proof of conformity of production under Rule 126A within six months. Although these requirements were mandatory, subsequent vehicle registration, fitness certificates and tourist permits issued by competent transport authorities established compliance with motor vehicle law and fulfilled the policy condition&#039;s objective. Confiscation and penalty for the earlier non-production of the prescribed type-approval or compliance certificate were therefore unsustainable, as the procedural deficiency did not warrant denial of substantive benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751196</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>