<?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>2003 (5) TMI 371 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108495</link>
    <description>Permission to store excisable goods without payment of duty could not be made subject to a condition waiving a statutory claim for remission. A condition contrary to the rules could not override the right to remission; if the department considered the fire risk unacceptable, it should have refused permission at the outset. The denial of remission on that unlawful condition was unsustainable, and the assessee was entitled to remission and consequential refund.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:26:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145512" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (5) TMI 371 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108495</link>
      <description>Permission to store excisable goods without payment of duty could not be made subject to a condition waiving a statutory claim for remission. A condition contrary to the rules could not override the right to remission; if the department considered the fire risk unacceptable, it should have refused permission at the outset. The denial of remission on that unlawful condition was unsustainable, and the assessee was entitled to remission and consequential refund.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108495</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>