9911796707
Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Follow us:
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 160/92-Cus. dt. 20-4-92 as amended regarding the eligibility for concessional rate of duty based on possession of a valid license at the time of import. Analysis: The case involved an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the eligibility of importers for the benefit of Notification No. 160/92-Cus. The issue was whether the importers were entitled to the concessional rate of duty under the notification due to possession of a valid license at the time of import. The appellants argued that the delay in issuing licenses by the DGFT should not affect their eligibility for the concessional rate of duty. They contended that the licenses issued after the import should relate back to the dates of the decisions by the EPCG Committee, making them eligible for the benefit. However, the Tribunal found these submissions untenable as the notification explicitly required possession of a valid license issued on or after 1-5-95 by the DGFT at the time of import. The Tribunal emphasized that the language of the notification was clear in mandating the possession of a valid license at the time of import to avail the concessional rate of duty. Since the licenses were issued after the import, the importers did not meet the requirement specified in the notification. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the appeals, ruling that neither of the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the concessional rate of duty for the goods imported in March'95. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on a strict interpretation of the notification's requirements regarding the possession of a valid license at the time of import to qualify for the concessional rate of duty. The Tribunal clarified that the doctrine of dating back and relating back could not be applied in this case, as the notification's language clearly specified the timing of license possession for eligibility, which the appellants did not meet.
|
