<?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 (6) TMI 1012 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754405</link>
    <description>The CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appellant&#039;s appeal regarding rectification of export shipping bills. The appellant had inadvertently failed to mention advance license details in bills of export despite including them in invoices and packing lists. The Commissioner (Appeals) initially correctly held this was a rectifiable error under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, a subsequent Commissioner (Appeals) ignored previous orders and factual details, unnecessarily prolonging the matter for 10 years. The Tribunal held that adding advance license numbers to shipping bills constituted minor rectification, not amendment, as supporting documents existed at the time of export. The impugned order was set aside, with the Tribunal criticizing the Revenue&#039;s indirect review method that caused unnecessary delays and difficulties for the appellant in obtaining closure reports from DGFT.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Jun 2024 08:11:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=757311" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (6) TMI 1012 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754405</link>
      <description>The CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appellant&#039;s appeal regarding rectification of export shipping bills. The appellant had inadvertently failed to mention advance license details in bills of export despite including them in invoices and packing lists. The Commissioner (Appeals) initially correctly held this was a rectifiable error under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, a subsequent Commissioner (Appeals) ignored previous orders and factual details, unnecessarily prolonging the matter for 10 years. The Tribunal held that adding advance license numbers to shipping bills constituted minor rectification, not amendment, as supporting documents existed at the time of export. The impugned order was set aside, with the Tribunal criticizing the Revenue&#039;s indirect review method that caused unnecessary delays and difficulties for the appellant in obtaining closure reports from DGFT.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754405</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>