<?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>2004 (1) TMI 87 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46983</link>
    <description>Rule 15 of the Customs and Central Excise Drawback Rules, 1971 operates as an independent, beneficial relaxation power where an exporter is otherwise entitled to drawback but has failed to comply with procedural requirements for reasons beyond control. Rule 6 sets out the procedure and time-limit for claiming determination of brand rate, while Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Drawback Rules create the substantive entitlement to drawback. An application under Rule 15 cannot be rejected mechanically merely because Rule 6 was not complied with; the competent authority must consider the request on its merits. The rejection was therefore unsustainable and required fresh consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:23:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85503" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 87 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46983</link>
      <description>Rule 15 of the Customs and Central Excise Drawback Rules, 1971 operates as an independent, beneficial relaxation power where an exporter is otherwise entitled to drawback but has failed to comply with procedural requirements for reasons beyond control. Rule 6 sets out the procedure and time-limit for claiming determination of brand rate, while Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Drawback Rules create the substantive entitlement to drawback. An application under Rule 15 cannot be rejected mechanically merely because Rule 6 was not complied with; the competent authority must consider the request on its merits. The rejection was therefore unsustainable and required fresh consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46983</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>