<?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>Import licence for gold dore bars vs 2008 duty exemption notification-tribunal allows exemption claim; duty, penalty and fine set aside</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95873</link>
    <description>The dominant issue was whether an import licence condition stating that import of gold dore bars was &quot;subject to&quot; a 2012 customs notification barred availment of a separate 2008 exemption notification. The tribunal held that the licence did not expressly prohibit other applicable exemptions; therefore, if an exemption notification fully exempted duty, the importer could lawfully claim it notwithstanding the licence reference to the 2012 notification, and the Commissioner&#039;s &quot;if and only if&quot; reading was unsustainable. It further held that customs could not question the validity of a DGFT-issued licence unless it was cancelled by DGFT, and hence duty demand under s.28(1), penalty under s.112(a)(ii), and redemption fine could not survive; the order was set aside and appeal allowed - CESTAT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2026 12:04:05 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2026 12:04:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=877100" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Import licence for gold dore bars vs 2008 duty exemption notification-tribunal allows exemption claim; duty, penalty and fine set aside</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95873</link>
      <description>The dominant issue was whether an import licence condition stating that import of gold dore bars was &quot;subject to&quot; a 2012 customs notification barred availment of a separate 2008 exemption notification. The tribunal held that the licence did not expressly prohibit other applicable exemptions; therefore, if an exemption notification fully exempted duty, the importer could lawfully claim it notwithstanding the licence reference to the 2012 notification, and the Commissioner&#039;s &quot;if and only if&quot; reading was unsustainable. It further held that customs could not question the validity of a DGFT-issued licence unless it was cancelled by DGFT, and hence duty demand under s.28(1), penalty under s.112(a)(ii), and redemption fine could not survive; the order was set aside and appeal allowed - CESTAT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2026 12:04:05 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95873</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>