<?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>2006 (3) TMI 64 - HIGH COURT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2936</link>
    <description>The court dismissed both writ petitions challenging the constitutionality of notification clauses and the eligibility of a diagnostic centre as a &#039;Hospital&#039;. The petitioners were directed to pay the duty amount with interest and a penalty for non-compliance with notification conditions. The court emphasized the importance of fulfilling exemption criteria and held that rescission of a notification did not absolve the petitioners from their obligations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=42289" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (3) TMI 64 - HIGH COURT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2936</link>
      <description>The court dismissed both writ petitions challenging the constitutionality of notification clauses and the eligibility of a diagnostic centre as a &#039;Hospital&#039;. The petitioners were directed to pay the duty amount with interest and a penalty for non-compliance with notification conditions. The court emphasized the importance of fulfilling exemption criteria and held that rescission of a notification did not absolve the petitioners from their obligations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2936</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>