<?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>1990 (12) TMI 195 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80946</link>
    <description>An auction clause that expressly includes the date of auction within a 45-day adjustment period captures any increase or reduction in export duty occurring on that date. The contractual scheme required duty fluctuations within that period to be shared between the Board and the exporter, and the reserve price was set by reference to the duty prevailing up to the day before auction. A reduction in export duty on the auction date therefore fell within the sharing mechanism, and the argument that it operated only from midnight was rejected because it would defeat the clause&#039;s express inclusive wording. The exporters were not entitled to a refund of the amount paid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Jul 2014 12:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118091" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (12) TMI 195 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80946</link>
      <description>An auction clause that expressly includes the date of auction within a 45-day adjustment period captures any increase or reduction in export duty occurring on that date. The contractual scheme required duty fluctuations within that period to be shared between the Board and the exporter, and the reserve price was set by reference to the duty prevailing up to the day before auction. A reduction in export duty on the auction date therefore fell within the sharing mechanism, and the argument that it operated only from midnight was rejected because it would defeat the clause&#039;s express inclusive wording. The exporters were not entitled to a refund of the amount paid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80946</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>