<?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>2001 (9) TMI 335 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97269</link>
    <description>The availability of concessional duty under Notification No. 6/94-C.E. for bulk drugs cleared between 6-1-1995 and 8-2-1995 was questioned after repeal of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1987 and the later omission of the relevant entry from the notification. Because Tribunal decisions on this point were conflicting, the matter was referred to a Larger Bench for determination without any view being expressed on the merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:28:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134327" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (9) TMI 335 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97269</link>
      <description>The availability of concessional duty under Notification No. 6/94-C.E. for bulk drugs cleared between 6-1-1995 and 8-2-1995 was questioned after repeal of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1987 and the later omission of the relevant entry from the notification. Because Tribunal decisions on this point were conflicting, the matter was referred to a Larger Bench for determination without any view being expressed on the merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97269</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>