<?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>2009 (8) TMI 421 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76047</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the withdrawal of the exemption notifications was in the public interest. The doctrine of promissory estoppel did not apply as the government had shown sufficient public interest to justify the withdrawal. The petitioner&#039;s claim for concessional duty on the second consignment was denied, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114273" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 421 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76047</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the withdrawal of the exemption notifications was in the public interest. The doctrine of promissory estoppel did not apply as the government had shown sufficient public interest to justify the withdrawal. The petitioner&#039;s claim for concessional duty on the second consignment was denied, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76047</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>