<?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>1991 (9) TMI 162 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81135</link>
    <description>A fiscal concession under the Maharashtra Municipalities (Octroi) Rules, 1968 was available only on strict compliance with the prescribed declaration in Form 14, because the form enabled contemporaneous verification of the imported raw material&#039;s use in the industrial undertaking. Non-filing of that declaration meant the claimant could not later seek to prove entitlement through belated scrutiny of records, and the concession had to be availed in the manner prescribed. The commentary also notes that refund of octroi paid long earlier is not a matter of right and may be declined in discretion, so the refund claim failed for want of procedural compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2025 20:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118280" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (9) TMI 162 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81135</link>
      <description>A fiscal concession under the Maharashtra Municipalities (Octroi) Rules, 1968 was available only on strict compliance with the prescribed declaration in Form 14, because the form enabled contemporaneous verification of the imported raw material&#039;s use in the industrial undertaking. Non-filing of that declaration meant the claimant could not later seek to prove entitlement through belated scrutiny of records, and the concession had to be availed in the manner prescribed. The commentary also notes that refund of octroi paid long earlier is not a matter of right and may be declined in discretion, so the refund claim failed for want of procedural compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81135</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>