<?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>1992 (4) TMI 135 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81843</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court&#039;s construction of the REP licence provisions in Oswal Woollen Mills bound all similarly situated transferees under the 1981-82 Import Policy, because Paragraphs 138(1) and 140 were interpreted on their text and the law declared under Article 141 could not be confined by circular. The same ratio applied to the materially identical 1980-81 policy, where the corresponding paragraphs showed no relevant difference. It did not apply to the 1982-83 policy, because the scheme was materially altered by restrictive words in Paragraph 138(1) and related changes to Paragraph 140, so entitlement had to be examined under that later policy on its own terms.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:19:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118988" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (4) TMI 135 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81843</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court&#039;s construction of the REP licence provisions in Oswal Woollen Mills bound all similarly situated transferees under the 1981-82 Import Policy, because Paragraphs 138(1) and 140 were interpreted on their text and the law declared under Article 141 could not be confined by circular. The same ratio applied to the materially identical 1980-81 policy, where the corresponding paragraphs showed no relevant difference. It did not apply to the 1982-83 policy, because the scheme was materially altered by restrictive words in Paragraph 138(1) and related changes to Paragraph 140, so entitlement had to be examined under that later policy on its own terms.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81843</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>