<?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>1985 (1) TMI 204 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74340</link>
    <description>Manufacturer-exporters were entitled to an Export House Certificate under Paragraph 176 of the Import-Export Policy, 1984-85 where admitted manufacturing activity, export figures, and permanent small-scale industrial registration satisfied the policy conditions. The authorities could not recast the application as a renewal request and apply Paragraph 180(2), because that provision governed renewal of existing export house certificates, not fresh entitlement for manufacturer-exporters. By relying on inapplicable renewal criteria and ignoring the permanent SSI registration, the rejection was contrary to the policy scheme and unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2011 16:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112619" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (1) TMI 204 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74340</link>
      <description>Manufacturer-exporters were entitled to an Export House Certificate under Paragraph 176 of the Import-Export Policy, 1984-85 where admitted manufacturing activity, export figures, and permanent small-scale industrial registration satisfied the policy conditions. The authorities could not recast the application as a renewal request and apply Paragraph 180(2), because that provision governed renewal of existing export house certificates, not fresh entitlement for manufacturer-exporters. By relying on inapplicable renewal criteria and ignoring the permanent SSI registration, the rejection was contrary to the policy scheme and unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74340</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>