https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761035 The Madras HC ruled in favor of petitioners challenging customs authorities' invocation of bank guarantees for 100% EOUs importing goods for integrated aquaculture farms. The court held that Notification 188/93-Cus maintained exemption continuity for prawn feed and raw materials during the alleged interruption period between December 1993 and December 1994. Despite customs authorities overlooking this notification and relying on other notifications to justify guarantee invocations, the court found that subsequent Notification 196/1994's clause (9) ensured seamless exemption continuance. The court determined no actual interruption occurred in exemption status, making Section 159A of Customs Act inapplicable due to express contrary intention in the notifications. en-us Tue, 15 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Nov 2024 08:12:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761035 The Madras HC ruled in favor of petitioners challenging customs authorities' invocation of bank guarantees for 100% EOUs importing goods for integrated aquaculture farms. The court held that Notification 188/93-Cus maintained exemption continuity for prawn feed and raw materials during the alleged interruption period between December 1993 and December 1994. Despite customs authorities overlooking this notification and relying on other notifications to justify guarantee invocations, the court found that subsequent Notification 196/1994's clause (9) ensured seamless exemption continuance. The court determined no actual interruption occurred in exemption status, making Section 159A of Customs Act inapplicable due to express contrary intention in the notifications. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 15 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761035