<?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>1994 (9) TMI 348 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174825</link>
    <description>Statutory price control for coke did not make the notified sale price exhaustive where the governing order and notification separately contemplated additional charges for special sizing, beneficiation, transport beyond the specified distance, duties and levies. Coke that had to be screened, segregated and handled to conform to prescribed ISI specifications for foundry use was treated as requiring special sizing, so the seller could recover service or handling charges over and above the notified price. The purchaser&#039;s failure to contract expressly for a special size was immaterial because supply had to meet the prescribed statutory specification. The High Court&#039;s restriction on recovery beyond the notified price was therefore incorrect.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2015 09:28:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=402883" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (9) TMI 348 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174825</link>
      <description>Statutory price control for coke did not make the notified sale price exhaustive where the governing order and notification separately contemplated additional charges for special sizing, beneficiation, transport beyond the specified distance, duties and levies. Coke that had to be screened, segregated and handled to conform to prescribed ISI specifications for foundry use was treated as requiring special sizing, so the seller could recover service or handling charges over and above the notified price. The purchaser&#039;s failure to contract expressly for a special size was immaterial because supply had to meet the prescribed statutory specification. The High Court&#039;s restriction on recovery beyond the notified price was therefore incorrect.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174825</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>