<?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>1984 (6) TMI 244 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167061</link>
    <description>The concessional countervailing duty on imported caprolactum was conditional on the product being manufactured from benzene derived from raw naphtha on which duty had already been paid, and that condition was not satisfied. Trade notices issued by Collectorates could not override the exemption notification or control its plain terms because they had no statutory force. In taxing matters, there is no estoppel against the statute, so an incorrect executive clarification could not prevent application of the notification as written. A plea of discrimination based on different practice in other Collectorates was also rejected, and the demand was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2014 18:48:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=370309" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (6) TMI 244 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167061</link>
      <description>The concessional countervailing duty on imported caprolactum was conditional on the product being manufactured from benzene derived from raw naphtha on which duty had already been paid, and that condition was not satisfied. Trade notices issued by Collectorates could not override the exemption notification or control its plain terms because they had no statutory force. In taxing matters, there is no estoppel against the statute, so an incorrect executive clarification could not prevent application of the notification as written. A plea of discrimination based on different practice in other Collectorates was also rejected, and the demand was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167061</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>