<?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>1998 (2) TMI 132 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44967</link>
    <description>A distinct statutory relaxation power under Rule 15 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1971 requires the Central Government to examine an exporter&#039;s representation on its merits where non-compliance is claimed to be due to reasons beyond control. The authority cannot decline consideration merely by relying on an internal practice or policy that relaxation is unavailable beyond the period contemplated under Rule 6. The operative point is that a power affecting substantive export drawback rights must be exercised by applying the rule itself and recording reasons. On that basis, the rejection was unsustainable and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration under the relaxation provision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 13:26:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83496" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (2) TMI 132 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44967</link>
      <description>A distinct statutory relaxation power under Rule 15 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1971 requires the Central Government to examine an exporter&#039;s representation on its merits where non-compliance is claimed to be due to reasons beyond control. The authority cannot decline consideration merely by relying on an internal practice or policy that relaxation is unavailable beyond the period contemplated under Rule 6. The operative point is that a power affecting substantive export drawback rights must be exercised by applying the rule itself and recording reasons. On that basis, the rejection was unsustainable and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration under the relaxation provision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44967</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>