<?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 (12) TMI 254 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53702</link>
    <description>A transferable DEEC licence was treated as sufficient for exemption where it was valid at the time of shipment and filing of the Bill of Entry, even though it had expired before clearance from bond. The Tribunal relied on earlier decisions, held the issue was no longer res integra, and read Notification No. 31/97-Cus. as requiring validity at the relevant import stage rather than at bond clearance. It further accepted that the licence related to the goods and that an importer could be represented by a person claiming on its behalf. The objection based on later lapse of the licence was rejected, and the benefit of the notification was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2010 16:49:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92179" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (12) TMI 254 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53702</link>
      <description>A transferable DEEC licence was treated as sufficient for exemption where it was valid at the time of shipment and filing of the Bill of Entry, even though it had expired before clearance from bond. The Tribunal relied on earlier decisions, held the issue was no longer res integra, and read Notification No. 31/97-Cus. as requiring validity at the relevant import stage rather than at bond clearance. It further accepted that the licence related to the goods and that an importer could be represented by a person claiming on its behalf. The objection based on later lapse of the licence was rejected, and the benefit of the notification was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53702</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>