<?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>2005 (1) TMI 703 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182889</link>
    <description>Supplies of raw materials from the Domestic Tariff Area to a Free Trade Zone unit were treated as deemed exports under the policy, and that classification brought the claim within the scheme&#039;s express exclusion. The fact that the materials were later used in physical exports did not change the character of the inward supply, so reimbursement under the International Price Reimbursement Scheme was not available. The plea of promissory estoppel also failed because there was no clear representation overriding the scheme and no precise supporting facts on exports, claim amount, price differential, or supply prices. The claim was therefore rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 May 2016 18:00:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=429136" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (1) TMI 703 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182889</link>
      <description>Supplies of raw materials from the Domestic Tariff Area to a Free Trade Zone unit were treated as deemed exports under the policy, and that classification brought the claim within the scheme&#039;s express exclusion. The fact that the materials were later used in physical exports did not change the character of the inward supply, so reimbursement under the International Price Reimbursement Scheme was not available. The plea of promissory estoppel also failed because there was no clear representation overriding the scheme and no precise supporting facts on exports, claim amount, price differential, or supply prices. The claim was therefore rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182889</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>