<?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>2005 (2) TMI 706 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115954</link>
    <description>Sulphonic acid imported as a raw material or chemical intermediate was not classifiable under Entry 18 of Schedule H, because that entry covered only substances capable of being used directly for washing, not inputs used to manufacture a detergent product. Octroi collected without authority of law was refundable under Article 265, and the refund rules did not operate as an absolute bar where the levy itself was unauthorized. Repeated protests and representations negatived laches, and the claim was not defeated by unjust enrichment because there was no material showing that the duty had been separately recovered or passed on. Refund was therefore payable, subject to proof of payment and compliance with the refund procedure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:37:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152952" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 706 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115954</link>
      <description>Sulphonic acid imported as a raw material or chemical intermediate was not classifiable under Entry 18 of Schedule H, because that entry covered only substances capable of being used directly for washing, not inputs used to manufacture a detergent product. Octroi collected without authority of law was refundable under Article 265, and the refund rules did not operate as an absolute bar where the levy itself was unauthorized. Repeated protests and representations negatived laches, and the claim was not defeated by unjust enrichment because there was no material showing that the duty had been separately recovered or passed on. Refund was therefore payable, subject to proof of payment and compliance with the refund procedure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115954</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>