<?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>2008 (5) TMI 653 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175060</link>
    <description>An exemption notification under the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 was construed purposively to apply to drugs manufactured within the exempted period, even if sold after the cut-off date. The Court reasoned that the manufacturer had no control over the timing of ultimate retail sale and that limiting the exemption to sales completed by 31 October 1999 would produce an unworkable and absurd result. The notification was read in light of the object of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the practical realities of manufacture, dispatch, distribution and sale. On that construction, the overcharge demand was unsustainable and the assessee&#039;s position was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2015 14:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=404259" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 653 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175060</link>
      <description>An exemption notification under the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 was construed purposively to apply to drugs manufactured within the exempted period, even if sold after the cut-off date. The Court reasoned that the manufacturer had no control over the timing of ultimate retail sale and that limiting the exemption to sales completed by 31 October 1999 would produce an unworkable and absurd result. The notification was read in light of the object of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the practical realities of manufacture, dispatch, distribution and sale. On that construction, the overcharge demand was unsustainable and the assessee&#039;s position was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175060</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>