<?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 (8) TMI 249 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53376</link>
    <description>Customs authorities cannot unilaterally deny DEPB benefit once the competent licensing authority has issued the scrip granting the export incentive. If customs objects to the scrip or the underlying export description, it should raise the objection and refer the matter to the licensing authority for modification, cancellation, or other action. A post-export, vague doubt that the goods were not embossed with the required legend is not sufficient to refuse the benefit already accorded under the export policy. On that basis, denial of DEPB benefit without value cap was improper and the exporter remained entitled to the scrip benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2010 18:29:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91853" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 249 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53376</link>
      <description>Customs authorities cannot unilaterally deny DEPB benefit once the competent licensing authority has issued the scrip granting the export incentive. If customs objects to the scrip or the underlying export description, it should raise the objection and refer the matter to the licensing authority for modification, cancellation, or other action. A post-export, vague doubt that the goods were not embossed with the required legend is not sufficient to refuse the benefit already accorded under the export policy. On that basis, denial of DEPB benefit without value cap was improper and the exporter remained entitled to the scrip benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53376</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>