<?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>1999 (7) TMI 350 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93670</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the respondents, determining that they were eligible to avail benefits under Notification 48/77. It held that the respondents, despite being a subsidiary of a foreign company, met the criteria as they were not considered a foreign company under the Companies Act. The court emphasized that the conditions of the notification needed to be fulfilled concurrently for eligibility, and since the respondents did not hold shares in a foreign company, they were entitled to the benefits. The appeal by the Department was dismissed as the court found the respondents compliant with the notification&#039;s requirements.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2023 14:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130730" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (7) TMI 350 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93670</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the respondents, determining that they were eligible to avail benefits under Notification 48/77. It held that the respondents, despite being a subsidiary of a foreign company, met the criteria as they were not considered a foreign company under the Companies Act. The court emphasized that the conditions of the notification needed to be fulfilled concurrently for eligibility, and since the respondents did not hold shares in a foreign company, they were entitled to the benefits. The appeal by the Department was dismissed as the court found the respondents compliant with the notification&#039;s requirements.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93670</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>