Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2020 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1453 - HC - CustomsImposition of Fiscal Penalty - supplies made by the petitioner to SEZ - fulfilment of conditions of the license by importing the capital goods at concessional rate of Customs Duty in violation of Exim policy or not - fulfilment of export obligation or not - Rule 23 of the SEZ Rules, 2006 - HELD THAT:- The appellant was required to follow the Handbook of Procedures. Therefore, since the paragraph 5.13(b), of the Hand Book of Procedures governs the procedure for the fulfilment of the export obligations under of Chapter 5 of the EPCG scheme, the supply to the Nokia SEZ, shall be governed by para 5.13(b) - in light of para 5.13(b) of the HBP, the appellant has fulfilled its export obligation as mandated by the [EPCG] scheme. It is trite that when a method has been laid down, has laid down, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed, and thus, the mandate of submission of the Bills of Entry cannot sustain - In Taylor v. Taylor, as notably followed in Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor [1936 (6) TMI 11 - PRIVY COUNCIL] and a plethora of judgments of the Supreme Court, the most well-known being, perhaps, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh [1963 (8) TMI 43 - SUPREME COURT], conclude the issue, in law, in favour of the appellants. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|