<?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>2009 (12) TMI 651 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211967</link>
    <description>Rebate of duty on aviation turbine fuel supplied to aircraft operating to Kathmandu was found inadmissible because the governing excise notification applied only to specified foreign destinations and did not include Nepal. Earlier administrative instructions and manual provisions could not override or enlarge the notification&#039;s express scope, so the refund claim fell outside the rebate scheme and the rejection of the claim was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Apr 2012 16:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185382" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (12) TMI 651 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211967</link>
      <description>Rebate of duty on aviation turbine fuel supplied to aircraft operating to Kathmandu was found inadmissible because the governing excise notification applied only to specified foreign destinations and did not include Nepal. Earlier administrative instructions and manual provisions could not override or enlarge the notification&#039;s express scope, so the refund claim fell outside the rebate scheme and the rejection of the claim was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211967</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>