<?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>Tribunal allows appeal; DRI SCNs upheld but duty demand set aside, treating N/N 30/97 lapse as procedural</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94685</link>
    <description>CESTAT upheld the competency of DRI officers to issue show cause notices in light of the statutory amendment and the SC decision in Canon India (Review), rejecting the appellant&#039;s jurisdictional challenge. However, on merits, CESTAT held that the Commissioner (Adjudication) acted beyond the show cause notice by introducing the &quot;merchant exporter&quot; issue at adjudication stage, which is impermissible. Relying on HC precedent in Galaxy Surfactants and CESTAT&#039;s decision in Tetrapack, the Tribunal held that a manufacturer-importer may send imported goods for job-work under N/N 30/97 and that non-obtaining of prior permission is only a procedural lapse, not warranting demand of duty. The appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2025 08:35:09 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2025 08:35:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=868594" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Tribunal allows appeal; DRI SCNs upheld but duty demand set aside, treating N/N 30/97 lapse as procedural</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94685</link>
      <description>CESTAT upheld the competency of DRI officers to issue show cause notices in light of the statutory amendment and the SC decision in Canon India (Review), rejecting the appellant&#039;s jurisdictional challenge. However, on merits, CESTAT held that the Commissioner (Adjudication) acted beyond the show cause notice by introducing the &quot;merchant exporter&quot; issue at adjudication stage, which is impermissible. Relying on HC precedent in Galaxy Surfactants and CESTAT&#039;s decision in Tetrapack, the Tribunal held that a manufacturer-importer may send imported goods for job-work under N/N 30/97 and that non-obtaining of prior permission is only a procedural lapse, not warranting demand of duty. The appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2025 08:35:09 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94685</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>